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 is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see MPEP 2106).
Applying Step 1 of the MPEP § 2106, the instant application includes the following independent claims:
Claim 1 is directed towards “A radar signal processing device"
Claim 6 is directed towards “A radar signal processing method executed by a radar signal processing device”
Claim 11 is directed towards “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program”
As such, claims 1, 6, 11 are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim(s) 6 and 11 are evaluated under the same basis and claim 1 because claim(s) 6 and 11 have the same defects as those noted in claim 1 below:
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the MPEP § 2106: claim 1 presents the following steps which
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, constitute an abstract idea and recite a mathematical process:
A radar signal processing device comprising: an acquirer configured to acquire ranging point information including position information and speed information at each of ranging points obtained by irradiating radar waves; 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; and 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, 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.
Each of these steps can reasonably be performed by a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification (see para. 0002) and thus are reasonably mathematical concepts.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the MPEP § 2106: Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 do not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 similarly recite “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”
These limitations add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP § 2106: Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in combination, that result in the claim as a whole, amounting to an inventive concept. The claim consists entirely of computing and outputting data in the form of an aggregating solution; thus, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular mathematical calculation; and thus, fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such claim(s) 1, 6, 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 when taken both individually and in combination, are directed to the judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of the additional cited claims add limitations can be performed by a general-purpose computer using math. As such, claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations, with or without a simple calculator (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Finally, claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14 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).
Regarding claim 1, Itohara teaches A radar signal processing device comprising:
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
Itohara does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Sudarsan 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.”).
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 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 4, 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 surrounds the second pre-segment (Sudarsan 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.”).
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 9, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
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.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13 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) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miyahara (CN 113096145).
Regarding claim 3, 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, Miyahara teaches
wherein the segment generator is configured to generate the composite segment when a distance between the first pre-segment and the second pre-segment is within a threshold and when 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.4 “if there is edge point group aligned in the vertical direction, then the edge point group aligned in the vertical direction is combined into one edge point group.”).
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 8, claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
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) 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
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648