DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024 and 04/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Amendment
Amendments of claims 1, 6, 11 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and is accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant notes on p.8:
During the interview conducted on April 13th, the Examiner agreed that Itohara and Sudarsan, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest a radar signal processing device that generates a composite segment based on the conditions that: (i) a distance between the first pre-segment and the second pre-segment is within a threshold distance; and (ii) the ranging points included in the first pre-segment and the ranging points included in the second pre- segment are in a vertical relationship, or the first pre-segment surrounds the second pre-segment, and a controller for controlling the vehicle based on the generated composite segment, as recited
in amended claims 1, 6 and 11.
Applicant pointed out that Itohara discloses acquiring position and speed information and clustering detected data based on position information (see Itohara paragraphs [0005] and [0038]). However, Itohara fails to teach or suggest generating a composite segment based on a distance threshold and a vertical relationship or surrounding relationship conditions, and controlling the vehicle using the generated composite segment, as defined in amended claims 1, 6 and 11. The Office Action cites Sudarsan for merging clusters in a pixel map context (see Sudarsan paragraph [0070] and Abstract). However, as discussed during the interview, Sudarsan
fails to teach or suggest the amended requirement that composite segment generation is conditioned on the pre-segments satisfying both a distance threshold and a vertical relationship or surrounding relationship. The cited portions of Sudarsan merely describe a proximity clustering process that merges clusters when a selected pixel and a neighbor pixel are assigned to different clusters. In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that the claimed invention is patentable over Itohara and Sudarsan, taken alone or in combination.
While Itohara in view of Sudarsan fail to teach the amendments largely rolled from claims 3-4, Miyahara teaches the limitations. Miyahara discloses a target boundary detection system that uses vertical direction to combine edge points into groups, elaborated in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itohara et al. (US 20140022110 hereinafter Itohara) in view of Sudarsan et al. (US 20210208242 hereinafter Sudarsan) and further in view of Miyahara (CN 113096145).
Regarding claim 1, Itohara teaches A radar signal processing device mounted on a vehicle, the radar signal processing device being configured to control the vehicle using a generated composite segment, the radar signal processing device comprising (0002 “A radar device used for a vehicle or other uses radiates a radio wave and receives a reflected signal that is the radio wave reflected by a target to be detected”):
an acquirer configured to acquire ranging point information including position information and speed information at each of ranging points obtained by irradiating radar waves (0005 “Depending on the type of the radar, the radar can output position information (distance/angle) of targets and can also output relative speed information of the target as viewed from the radar”);
a pre-segment generator configured to generate a pre-segment by grouping the ranging points as a set of the ranging points based on the acquired ranging point information from the acquirer (0031 “a distance calculation unit 113”; 0038 “Therefore, a clustering process for grouping detected data, which are determined to correspond to the same target, into one cluster is performed. Conventionally, a cluster to which detected data belongs is determined by setting an area of a shape such as circle or rectangle as illustrated in FIGS. 8A-8D for each cluster, and then by determining which area includes the detected data based on position information (distance, angle).”); and
a segment generator (Abstract “A tracking calculation unit 116 of a radar device 100 performs a clustering process, in which an input detected data set is grouped into clusters, and a tracking process, in which an averaged value and a prediction value are calculated for each of the clusters”)
Itohara does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miyahara teaches
a segment generator configured to generate a composite segment by combining the ranging points from a first pre-segment with the ranging points from a second pre-segment as a set of the ranging points based on a positional relationship between the first pre-segment and the second pre-segment (0070 “Subsequently, at step 440, the two different clusters are merged, in which the cluster associated with the selected pixel mergers with the cluster associated with the neighbor pixel”),
the first pre-segment being one of pre-segments generated by the pre-segment generator, and the second pre-segment being another one of the pre-segments generated by the pre-segment generator (Abstract “The method includes assigning the neighbor pixel to a same cluster as that of the subject pixel when only the subject pixel is assigned to a cluster, assigning the subject pixel to a same cluster as that of the neighbor pixel when only the neighbor pixel is assigned to a cluster, and merging clusters when the subject pixel and the neighbor pixel are assigned to different clusters.”)
and a control device mounted on the vehicle, the control device being configured to control the vehicle using the generated composite segment (fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Sudarsan with the teachings of Itohara. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensor performance (Sudarsan 0076). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Sudarsan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular clustering features. Since both Itohara and Sudarsan disclose similar vehicular radar systems using similar processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miyahara teaches
wherein the segment generator is configured to generate the composite segment based on the conditions that:
a distance between the first pre-segment and the second pre-segment is within a threshold value (p.4 “the edge point group aligned in the vertical direction is combined into one edge point group, comprising: in the edge point group aligned in the vertical direction: if the distance between the top part of any one edge point group and the bottom of the adjacent edge point group is not greater than the distance threshold value, then combining the edge point group with the adjacent edge point group as an edge point group.”); and
the ranging points included in the first pre-segment and the ranging points included in the second pre-segment are in a vertical relationship (p.12 “For example, in the edge point group obtained based on eight neighbourhos, there are 3 edge point groups gr#4 aligned in the vertical direction; gr#5 and gr#6, wherein the distance between the top of the edge point group gr#5 and the bottom of the edge point group gr#4 in the vertical direction is less than the preset distance threshold value, then the gr#4 and gr#5 are combined into an edge point group.”; (p.4 “the edge point group aligned in the vertical direction is combined into one edge point group, comprising: in the edge point group aligned in the vertical direction: if the distance between the top part of any one edge point group and the bottom of the adjacent edge point group is not greater than the distance threshold value, then combining the edge point group with the adjacent edge point group as an edge point group.”), or the first pre- segment surrounds the second pre-segment,
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miyahara with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (Miyahara Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miyahara merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular clustering features. Since both Miyahara and the cited prior art disclose similar vehicular radar systems using similar processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The radar signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the segment generator is configured to generate the composite segment when the first pre-segment is composed of ranging points corresponding to a moving target (Sudarsan 0049 “the perception engine 304 may consider what direction the target is moving and focus the beams on that area”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Sudarsan with the teachings of Itohara. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensor performance (Sudarsan 0076). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Sudarsan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular clustering features. Since both Itohara and Sudarsan disclose similar vehicular radar systems using similar processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itohara et al. (US 20140022110 hereinafter Itohara) in view of Sudarsan et al. (US 20210208242 hereinafter Sudarsan) and further in view of Miyahara (CN 113096145) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rawashdeh (US 20200320339).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The radar signal processing device according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Rawashdeh teaches
wherein the segment generator is configured to generate the composite segment when a size of the second pre-segment is within a threshold (0048 “At 630, the distance module 220 determines if the determined distance 265 satisfies a distance threshold 285. In some embodiments, the determined distance 265 may satisfy the distance threshold 285 when it is less than the distance threshold 285. The distance threshold 285 may be sized based on an average size of a vehicle 100, for example. Other distance thresholds 285 may be used. If the distance module 220 determines that the distance 265 satisfies the distance threshold 285 then the method 600 may continue at 650. Else, the method 600 may continue at 640.”; fig 6 [process ends in merging clusters]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Rawashdeh with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce more accurate information (Rawashdeh 0001). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Rawashdeh merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular clustering features. Since both Rawashdeh and the cited prior art disclose similar vehicular radar systems using similar processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
AKAMINEet al. (US 20210405177) discloses “In an object tracking device, a candidate generator is configured to, given P=Kmax−Kmin+1 that defines a range of foldings of velocity by phase rotation from Kmin.sup.th to Kmax.sup.th foldings, calculate P velocity estimates for each of initial observation points. The candidate generator sets the number of foldings Kmin and the number of foldings Kmax such that Kmin<0 and |Kmin|>|Kmax| when an absolute value of an observation angle representing a direction of the observation point is equal to or less than a first threshold value, and Kmax>0 and |Kmin|<|Kmax| when the absolute value of the observation angle is greater than a second threshold. A velocity determiner is configured to, for each set of candidate targets, select one of the candidate targets belonging to the set of candidate targets, thereby determining the velocity of a target associated with the initial observation point. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights