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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to point out that dependent claim 20 is a method claim which includes the continent limitation of “removing, by the radar apparatus, the first point cloud when a position of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted before a power source of the vehicle is stopped is inconsistent with a position of the vehicle after the power source is restarted.”. The feature of “removing, by the radar apparatus, the first point cloud” is contingent on the feature of “when a position of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted before a power source of the vehicle is stopped is inconsistent with a position of the vehicle after the power source is restarted.”. Therefore, this method claim is being interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation where no “removing, by the radar apparatus, the first point cloud” needs to be performed to fulfill the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Continent Limitations). For purposes of examination, a prior art rejection for claim 10 has been provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 12-14 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “each frame” in “generates point cloud data for each frame based on a reflection wave signal resulting from a radar signal reflected by an object;”. This limitation should recite, “each frame of a plurality of frames”. The same objection applies to claim 12.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “the past frames” in “the extracting circuitry extracts a plurality of the first point clouds from a plurality of the past frames respectively,”. This limitation should simply recite “past frames”. The same objection applies to claim 13.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, wherein, the second superimposing circuitry superimposes the plurality of first point clouds, the positions of which have been shifted.”. This limitation is grammatically incorrect and should be re-written. The same objection applies to claim 14.
Claim 19 recites the words “where” in “storing, by the radar apparatus, the first point cloud and the moving vector from a frame where the vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted is not stopped, and not storing the first point cloud and the moving vector from a frame where the vehicle is stopped.”, which makes the claim grammatically incorrect. The claim should be re-written.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6,7 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the object" in "clustering circuitry, which, in operation, generates a cluster for the object based on the point cloud data outputted from the superimposing circuitry;". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 recites, “an object” and “a stationary object” and claim 5 recites, “a moving object” and therefore it is unclear which “the object” claim 6 is referring to. The same rejection is applied to claim 17.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “N frames”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what “N” refers to. The same rejection is applied to claim 18.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system for determining the position of an aerial vehicle and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A radar apparatus, comprising:
signal processing circuitry, which, in operation, generates point cloud data for each frame based on a reflection wave signal resulting from a radar signal reflected by an object;
extracting circuitry, which, in operation, extracts a first point cloud corresponding to a stationary object from the point cloud data; and
superimposing circuitry, which, in operation, superimposes the point cloud data of a current frame and the first point cloud of a past frame.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system and therefore, is an apparatus and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of:
“ signal processing circuitry, which, in operation, generates point cloud data for each frame based on a reflection wave signal resulting from a radar signal reflected by an object”;
“ extracting circuitry, which, in operation, extracts a first point cloud corresponding to a stationary object from the point cloud data;”
and
“superimposing circuitry, which, in operation, superimposes the point cloud data of a current frame and the first point cloud of a past frame.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and are simply mathematical manipulation of data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
The recitation of the limitations of, “signal processing circuitry”, “extracting circuitry” and “superimposing circuitry” are elements which are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field to gather and process data.
Therefore the claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim 12 is a method claim and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to the same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering, data storing and the mathematical manipulation of data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering, data storing and data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5,7,11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KURODA et al. (US 20230213640 A1), hereinafter KURODA.
Regarding claim 1, KURODA discloses
A radar apparatus (see Fig. 1, electronic device 1 is a radar apparatus, further see paragraph 0045, “The electronic device 1 including the transmission antenna may typically be a radar (radio detecting and ranging (RADAR)) sensor that transmits and receives radio waves. However, the electronic device 1 is not limited to being a radar sensor.”), comprising:
signal processing circuitry (see Fig. 3, signal processor 10), which, in operation, generates point cloud data for each frame based on a reflection wave signal resulting from a radar signal reflected by an object (see paragraph 0078, “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a point group on a range-Doppler (distance-velocity) plane calculated by performing 2D-FFT, CFAR, and integrated signal processing of each subframe in the reception signal processor 12 illustrated in FIG. 2.”, further see Fig. 7, step S11 where point groups are generated using a plurality of frames);
extracting circuitry, which, in operation, extracts a first point cloud corresponding to a stationary object from the point cloud data (see Fig. 7 step S13, further see paragraph 0098, “After calculating the number of frames on which point groups are to be superimposed in Step S12, the signal processor 10 determines whether the detected object is stationary or not (Step S13). That is, in Step S13, the signal processor 10 determines whether each point group detected belongs to a stationary object or a moving object.”); and
superimposing circuitry, which, in operation, superimposes the point cloud data of a current frame and the first point cloud of a past frame (See Fig. 7, step S14, further see paragraph 0102, “When it is determined that the object is stationary in Step S13, the signal processor 10 superimposes point groups representing the object (Step S14). On the other hand, when it is determined that the object is not stationary, i.e., is moving in Step S13, the signal processor 10 skips Step S14. In other words, in this case, the signal processor 10 does not superimpose point groups representing the object.”, further see paragraph 0105, “Thus, in an embodiment, the signal processor 10 may output point group information by superimposing points representing the position of an object determined to be a stationary object, for example, based on the velocity of the object 200 and the velocity of the electronic device 1. On the other hand, the signal processor 10 may output point group information without superimposing points representing the position of an object determined not to be a stationary object, for example, based on the velocity of the object 200 and the velocity of the electronic device 1. As illustrated in Step S12, the signal processor 10 may output point group information by superimposing the position of an object determined to be a stationary object at a time defined by at least one frame of the transmission wave or the reception wave.”, further see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, KURODA further discloses
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
the extracting circuitry extracts a plurality of the first point clouds from a plurality of the past frames respectively (see paragraph 0098, “After calculating the number of frames on which point groups are to be superimposed in Step S12, the signal processor 10 determines whether the detected object is stationary or not (Step S13). That is, in Step S13, the signal processor 10 determines whether each point group detected belongs to a stationary object or a moving object.”, where “past frames” are extracted to determine whether the object is stationary), and
the radar apparatus further comprises second superimposing circuitry, which, in operation, superimposes the plurality of first point clouds respectively extracted from the plurality of past frames (see paragraph 0105, “Thus, in an embodiment, the signal processor 10 may output point group information by superimposing points representing the position of an object determined to be a stationary object, for example, based on the velocity of the object 200 and the velocity of the electronic device 1. On the other hand, the signal processor 10 may output point group information without superimposing points representing the position of an object determined not to be a stationary object, for example, based on the velocity of the object 200 and the velocity of the electronic device 1. As illustrated in Step S12, the signal processor 10 may output point group information by superimposing the position of an object determined to be a stationary object at a time defined by at least one frame of the transmission wave or the reception wave.”, further see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, KURODA further discloses
The radar apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising:
deriving circuitry, which, in operation, derives a moving vector of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted (see paragraph 0099, “Generally, in radar technologies, only the radial velocity Vr can be measured, as illustrated in FIG. 6. In the actual specification providing the effects of this embodiment, it is unlikely that there will be an object moving with a high velocity in a direction tangential to a concentric circle viewed from the electronic device 1. Therefore, in Step S13, the signal processor 10 may identify stationary and moving objects in the following way. In other words, a movement velocity Vp of an object can be expressed as the sum of a movement velocity Ve of the host vehicle and a radial velocity Vs of a point group, as in Equation (3) below…”, further see paragraph 0112); and
shifting circuitry, which, in operation, shifts, based on the moving vector, positions of the plurality of first point clouds respectively extracted from the plurality of past frames (see paragraph 0099, “Generally, in radar technologies, only the radial velocity Vr can be measured, as illustrated in FIG. 6. In the actual specification providing the effects of this embodiment, it is unlikely that there will be an object moving with a high velocity in a direction tangential to a concentric circle viewed from the electronic device 1. Therefore, in Step S13, the signal processor 10 may identify stationary and moving objects in the following way. In other words, a movement velocity Vp of an object can be expressed as the sum of a movement velocity Ve of the host vehicle and a radial velocity Vs of a point group, as in Equation (3) below…”, further see paragraph 0112, further see Fig. 9), wherein,
the second superimposing circuitry superimposes the plurality of first point clouds, the positions of which have been shifted (see Figs. 8- 9 where the superimposed points cloud have been shifted, further see paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 4, KURODA further discloses
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
storing circuitry (see paragraph 0053, “The signal processor 10 may appropriately include a memory as needed for the operation of signal processor 10.”), which, in operation, stores the first point cloud for each of a plurality of areas resulting from dividing a detection target area of the radar apparatus (see Fig. 5, further see paragraph 0079, “In FIG. 5, the horizontal direction represents range (distance) and the vertical direction represents velocity. A shaded point group s1, illustrated in FIG. 5, is a group of points representing a signal that exceeds the CFAR threshold process. An unshaded point group s2, illustrated in FIG. 5, illustrates a bin (2D-FFT sample) that did not exceed the CFAR threshold and does not have point group. For the point groups on the range-Doppler plane calculated in FIG. 5, the direction from the radar is calculated by direction estimation, and the position and velocity on a 2-D plane are calculated as a point group representing the object 200. Here, the direction estimation may be calculated using beamformers and/or subspace methods. Examples of typical subspace method algorithms include multiple signal classification (MUSIC) and estimation of signal parameters via rotation invariance technique (ESPRIT).”).
Regarding claim 5, KURODA further discloses
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
the extracting circuitry extracts a second point cloud corresponding to a moving object from the point cloud data (see paragraph 0098, “After calculating the number of frames on which point groups are to be superimposed in Step S12, the signal processor 10 determines whether the detected object is stationary or not (Step S13). That is, in Step S13, the signal processor 10 determines whether each point group detected belongs to a stationary object or a moving object.”), and
the radar apparatus further comprises removing circuitry, which, in operation, determines whether to remove the first point cloud based on a position of the first point cloud and a position of the second point cloud (see paragraph 0107-0108, “When the object is determined not to be stationary in Step S13, or when point groups are superimposed in Step S14, the signal processor 10 may perform processing to forget a point group in Step S15. In Step S15, the signal processor 10 may erase a point group corresponding to one old frame among all the superimposed point groups. As a result of the processing performed in Step S15, the electronic device 1 can prevent the number of superimposed point groups from continuing to increase. Thus, in this embodiment, signal processor 10 may perform processing to forget point group information at a prescribed timing…Once the processing for forgetting a point group has been performed in Step S15, the signal processor 10 determines whether or not the signal processor 10 has been instructed to end the processing illustrated in FIG. 7 (Step S16). In Step S16, when the signal processor 10 has been instructed to end the processing illustrated in FIG. 7, the signal processor 10 may end the processing illustrated in FIG. 7. On the other hand, in Step S16, when the signal processor 10 has not been instructed to end the processing illustrated in FIG. 7, the signal processor 10 may return to Step S11 and continue the processing.”).
Regarding claim 7, KURODA further discloses
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
storing circuitry, which, in operation, stores a plurality of the first point clouds over N frames and stores a moving vector of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted over the N frames (see paragraph 0095, “Here, N is the number of frames on which point groups are to be superimposed, Ar is the acceptable error for the distance of a point group from the radar, T is the time length of the frame, and Ve is the velocity vector of the host vehicle. In Equation (1), rounding of the calculated result is performed in order to make the number of calculated frames an integer (for example, a natural number) rather than a fraction. In the First Embodiment, the signal processor 10 may calculate the number of frames N on which point groups are to be superimposed as a number that varies dynamically in accordance with the velocity of the host vehicle.”); and
second superimposing circuitry, which, in operation, superimposes the plurality of first point clouds respectively extracted from the N frames after positions of the plurality of first point clouds are shifted based on the moving vector (see paragraph 0112, “On the other hand, FIGS. 9 and 10 illustrate examples of the distributions of point groups detected as a result of signal processing (point group superimposition processing) performed by the electronic device 1 according to the embodiment. In FIGS. 9 and 10, the density of point groups is improved by superimposing point groups for ten frames of the frame illustrated in FIG. 3, taking into account the movement velocity of the host vehicle. As illustrated in FIG. 9, the electronic device 1 is able to obtain a point group PG that is sufficient to obtain information regarding the shape and/or size of other vehicles (the cars 200A, 200B, 200C, and 200D) that are already parked. Therefore, with the point group superimposition processing of the electronic device 1, it is easy to grasp the size or shape of the other vehicles, i.e., the cars (200A, 200B, 200C, and 200D).”).
Regarding claim 11, KURODA further discloses
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
deriving circuitry, which, in operation, derives a moving vector of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted (see paragraph 0095, “Here, N is the number of frames on which point groups are to be superimposed, Ar is the acceptable error for the distance of a point group from the radar, T is the time length of the frame, and Ve is the velocity vector of the host vehicle. In Equation (1), rounding of the calculated result is performed in order to make the number of calculated frames an integer (for example, a natural number) rather than a fraction. In the First Embodiment, the signal processor 10 may calculate the number of frames N on which point groups are to be superimposed as a number that varies dynamically in accordance with the velocity of the host vehicle.”); and
compensating circuitry, which, in operation, compensates for the moving vector based on a result of comparing the point cloud data of the current frame and the point cloud data of a previous frame (see paragraph 0112, “On the other hand, FIGS. 9 and 10 illustrate examples of the distributions of point groups detected as a result of signal processing (point group superimposition processing) performed by the electronic device 1 according to the embodiment. In FIGS. 9 and 10, the density of point groups is improved by superimposing point groups for ten frames of the frame illustrated in FIG. 3, taking into account the movement velocity of the host vehicle. As illustrated in FIG. 9, the electronic device 1 is able to obtain a point group PG that is sufficient to obtain information regarding the shape and/or size of other vehicles (the cars 200A, 200B, 200C, and 200D) that are already parked. Therefore, with the point group superimposition processing of the electronic device 1, it is easy to grasp the size or shape of the other vehicles, i.e., the cars (200A, 200B, 200C, and 200D).”, further see paragraph 0118, “In the First Embodiment described above, as illustrated in Step S12 in FIG. 7, it is assumed that the number of frames N on which point groups are superimposed is calculated as a number that changes dynamically with the velocity of the host vehicle. In contrast, the signal processor 10 of the electronic device 1 according to the Second Embodiment may set the number of frames N on which point groups are to be superimposed as a fixed value Nfix in Step S12 in FIG. 7.”).
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURODA et al. (US 20230213640 A1) in view of ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20220383749 A1), hereinafter ISHIKAWA.
Regarding claim 6, KURODA discloses [Note: what KURODA fails to disclose is strike-through]
The radar apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising:
clustering circuitry, which, in operation, generates a cluster for the object based on the point cloud data outputted from the superimposing circuitry (see paragraph 0115, “As described above, the electronic device 1 according to the embodiment, for example, can obtain a spatial density for a point group sufficient to obtain the shape and size of a stationary object in millimeter wave radar using electromagnetic waves in the millimeter wave band to monitor short or medium distances. The electronic device 1 according to the embodiment can appropriately superimpose point groups over time while taking into account the relative velocity with respect to other stationary objects. Therefore, the electronic device 1 according to the embodiment can be applied, for example, to radar automatic parking systems or collision avoidance. The electronic device 1 according to the embodiment can improve the accuracy with which an object target is detected. The electronic device 1 according to the embodiment can detect, for example, stationary objects such as trees, fences, walls, buildings, vehicles, and crops with high accuracy.”); and
ISHIKAWA discloses,
tracking circuitry, which, in operation, performs tracking of the cluster (see paragraph 0161, “In step S5, the movement estimation unit 323 performs tracking of the object. Specifically, the movement estimation unit 323 uses a Kalman filter, a particle filter, or the like to recognize a movement of each object (a cluster of point groups) detected in the point cloud. At this time, the movement estimation unit 323 applies the Kalman filter or the particle filter in accordance with characteristics (for example, a difference between a mobile object and a stationary object, an assumed speed, and the like) of each object, for example.”), wherein,
the extracting circuitry determines whether each point cloud in the point cloud data is the first point cloud or the second point cloud based on a result of the tracking (see paragraph 0161, “In step S5, the movement estimation unit 323 performs tracking of the object. Specifically, the movement estimation unit 323 uses a Kalman filter, a particle filter, or the like to recognize a movement of each object (a cluster of point groups) detected in the point cloud. At this time, the movement estimation unit 323 applies the Kalman filter or the particle filter in accordance with characteristics (for example, a difference between a mobile object and a stationary object, an assumed speed, and the like) of each object, for example.”, further see paragraph 0072, “For example, the recognition unit 73 detects a movement of the object around the vehicle 1 by performing tracking that is following a movement of the cluster of point groups classified by clustering. As a result, a speed and a traveling direction (a movement vector) of the object around the vehicle 1 are detected.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by ISHIKAWA into the invention of KURODA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system on a vehicle to detect objects around the vehicle. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately determine whether objects are stationary or moving based on tracking data for vehicle path planning (see paragraph 0079 of ISHIKAWA).
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURODA et al. (US 20230213640 A1) in view of FISCHER (US 20240151813 A1).
Regarding claim 8, KURODA discloses [Note: what KURODA fails to disclose is strike-through]
The radar apparatus according to claim 7,
FISCHER discloses,
wherein the storing circuitry stores the first point cloud and the moving vector from a frame where the vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted is not stopped, and does not store the first point cloud and the moving vector from a frame where the vehicle is stopped (see paragraph 0022, “According to a further embodiment, the stored distance values are deleted after the vehicle ignition has been turned on/off. The stored distance values can therefore be deleted when the vehicle is restarted or the ignition is switched on/off. As a result, the determination of the current range of the distance sensor can be restarted after the vehicle has been started or after the vehicle has been shut down. This is suitable, in particular, if the vehicle has been shut down, for example for a lengthy period, for example overnight. In this case, contamination of the distance sensor or damage to the distance sensor may have occurred. A blocking of or damage to the distance sensor can be reliably detected by restarting the method.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by FISCHER into the invention of KURODA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system on a vehicle to detect objects around the vehicle. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power and storage by the system by storing and processing data as needed (i.e. during vehicular motion).
Regarding claim 9, KURODA discloses [Note: what KURODA fails to disclose is strike-through]
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
FISCHER discloses,
removing circuitry, which, in operation, removes the first point cloud when a position of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted before a power source of the vehicle is stopped is inconsistent with a position of the vehicle after the power source is restarted (see paragraph 0022, “According to a further embodiment, the stored distance values are deleted after the vehicle ignition has been turned on/off. The stored distance values can therefore be deleted when the vehicle is restarted or the ignition is switched on/off. As a result, the determination of the current range of the distance sensor can be restarted after the vehicle has been started or after the vehicle has been shut down. This is suitable, in particular, if the vehicle has been shut down, for example for a lengthy period, for example overnight. In this case, contamination of the distance sensor or damage to the distance sensor may have occurred. A blocking of or damage to the distance sensor can be reliably detected by restarting the method.”, further see paragraph 0038, “In a step S2, it is defined for the respective distance segments Sg1 to Sg4 and the angle segments A to F that no objects 6 have been detected therein. In a step S3, an object 6 has been detected in an angle segment A to F and in a distance segment Sg1 to Sg4. In a step S4, this angle segment A to F or distance segment Sg1 to Sg4 is indicated as reachable for the distance sensor 4. In addition, after the ignition has been switched on/off, the angle segment A to F and the distance segment Sg1 to Sg4 are marked as not reachable (step S5).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by FISCHER into the invention of KURODA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system on a vehicle to detect objects around the vehicle. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power and storage by the system by storing and processing data as needed (i.e. during vehicular motion).
Regarding claim 10, KURODA discloses [Note: what KURODA fails to disclose is strike-through]
The radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
FISCHER discloses,
removing circuitry, which, in operation, removes the first point cloud when a position of the first point cloud before a power source of a vehicle on which the radar apparatus is mounted is stopped is inconsistent with a position of the first point cloud after the power source is restarted (see paragraph 0022, “According to a further embodiment, the stored distance values are deleted after the vehicle ignition has been turned on/off. The stored distance values can therefore be deleted when the vehicle is restarted or the ignition is switched on/off. As a result, the determination of the current range of the distance sensor can be restarted after the vehicle has been started or after the vehicle has been shut down. This is suitable, in particular, if the vehicle has been shut down, for example for a lengthy period, for example overnight. In this case, contamination of the distance sensor or damage to the distance sensor may have occurred. A blocking of or damage to the distance sensor can be reliably detected by restarting the method.”, further see paragraph 0038, “In a step S2, it is defined for the respective distance segments Sg1 to Sg4 and the angle segments A to F that no objects 6 have been detected therein. In a step S3, an object 6 has been detected in an angle segment A to F and in a distance segment Sg1 to Sg4. In a step S4, this angle segment A to F or distance segment Sg1 to Sg4 is indicated as reachable for the distance sensor 4. In addition, after the ignition has been switched on/off, the angle segment A to F and the distance segment Sg1 to Sg4 are marked as not reachable (step S5).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by FISCHER into the invention of KURODA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system on a vehicle to detect objects around the vehicle. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power and storage by the system by storing and processing data as needed (i.e. during vehicular motion).
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takahama et al. (US 20070030131 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system on a vehicle and further discloses in paragraph 0060, “The operation of an obstacle verification device 1 in accordance with this embodiment will now be explained. FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the detailed operations executed by an obstacle verification system 1 in accordance with this embodiment. The control processing loop shown in FIG. 4 starts when the ignition switch of the host vehicle is turned on and, thereafter, is executed once every 100 ms until the ignition switch is turned off.”.
Tiwari et al. (US 20180267558 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system on a vehicle and further discloses in paragraph 0084, “Maintaining the stationary position of the vehicle preferably includes maintaining operation of the vehicle in the autonomous mode and ceasing locomotion only (e.g., continuing sensor data collection and/or processing), but can additionally or alternatively include placing any suitable subsystem of the vehicle into the off-state (e.g., the ignition, the sensor subsystem, the onboard computing system, etc.), and/or operating the vehicle in any suitable mode (e.g., the supervised autonomy mode, semi-autonomous mode, remote operation or teleoperation mode, etc.).”.
Armstrong-Crews et al. (US 20220135074 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system on a vehicle and further discloses the tracking of stationary and moving objects, see paragraph 0032, “. For some types of objects, such as pedestrians or moving vehicles, PAS module 133 and/or PAC module 137 can perform classification based on a single sensing frame. In some instances, multiple sensing frames can be used for accurate pattern-assisted segmentation and/or classification. In some implementations, segmentation can be initially performed by other methods (e.g., geometric segmentation, iterative closest point (ICP) mapping, and so on) whereas pattern-assisted classification can be used to track subsequent motion of the object, e.g., a previously stationary pedestrian starting to walk across the roadway, a previously closed door of a stopped car swinging open, a railroad crossing barrier previously open begins to close, an object previously located within a truck bed begins to fall down, and so on. In these and other instances, as described in more detail below, motion pattern-assisted segmentation and classification can then be used by the perception system 132 for efficient and reliable detection and tracking of objects.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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 at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648