DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation “wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit, the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity and the corrected velocity, respectively, and are utilized to detect difference before and after correction” is an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into the practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the applicant generally argues that the above limitation is an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into the practical application, the applicant does not explicitly articulate this position. On pages 9-11 of the remarks the Applicant points to the differences between plotting trajectories before and after correction, but does not elaborate on why plotting trajectories would make the claim eligible. As interpreted under step 2A prong two and in light of MPEP 2106.05(g) “wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit, the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity and the corrected velocity, respectively” merely refers to gathering and plotting data. Gathering and plotting data is extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal and is not considered sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. The specification clarifies on paragraph [0040] that the step of producing each trajectory is carried out by a commonplace computer algorithm. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) defines commonplace computer algorithms as “additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception” and does not deem them sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. It is further noted that the limitation “utilized to detect difference before and after correction” recites a step of comparing data to make an identification, therefore performing a judgement. The aforementioned limitation is considered a mental process and is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Shima as modified by Stachnik, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 11, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “utilized to detect difference before and after correction.” As claimed the term “difference“ is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear what differences are explicitly being detected. As claimed the term may refer to identifying a plurality of information that may include either: a difference in trajectories or respective velocities. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0039] “The clustering algorithm aims to categorize velocities to distinguish different objects”, but does not provide any explicit clarification as to what the claim is referring to. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “difference.” For examination purposes the above limitation will be interpreted to refer to differences in the respective trajectories.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a radar system. The claim therefore recites a product.
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recites a velocity correction method for a radar system. The claim therefore recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 11 recites,
calculate at least one coordinate according to the range and the angle in each of a plurality of cycles
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating at least one coordinate. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
the processing circuit is configured to calculate at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a velocity. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
wherein the processing circuit is configured to calculate at least one statistic value of the velocities of the combinations, and calculate a corrected velocity according to the at least one statistic value.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating statistic value. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity and the corrected velocity, respectively, and are utilized to detect difference before and after correction.
This limitation recites a step of comparing data to make an identification, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 2 and similarly claim 12 recites,
calculate the first coordinate and the second coordinate based on following equations: xi = Ri* cos(theta) yt=Ri* sin(theta) wherein R1 is the range measured in a i-th cycle of the cycles, is the angle measured in the i-th cycle, x is the first coordinate calculated in the i-th cycle, y is the second coordinate calculated in the i-th cycle, and i is a positive integer.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a first and second coordinate. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 3 and similarly claim 13 recites,
The circuit is configured to calculate the first velocity and the second velocity based on following equations: [Equation not reproduced] wherein Vx,k is the first velocity of the k-th combination, Vy,k is the second velocity of the k-th combination, AT is cycle time, and k is a positive integer.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a first and second velocity. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 4 and similarly claim 14 recites,
the processing circuit is configured to determine if a number of the cycles is greater than a cycle count, and if not, process a next cycle, and if yes, stop processing the next cycle.
This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by determining if a cycle count greater than or equal to a determined threshold. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 5 and similarly claim 15 recites,
the processing circuit is configured to determine, in one of the cycles, if the corresponding range is greater than a range threshold, and if yes, set the cycle count to be a first value, and if not, set the cycle count to be a second value, wherein the first value is greater than the second value.
This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by determining if a range value greater than or equal to a determined threshold. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 6 and similarly claim 16 recites,
the processing circuit is configured to determine if a difference among the first velocities of n continuous cycles is less than a velocity threshold and a difference among the second velocities of the n continuous cycles is less than the velocity threshold, and if yes, stop processing a next cycle, and if not, process the next cycle, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 1.
This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by determining if a difference among the first velocities and a difference among the second velocities is greater than or equal to a determined threshold. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 7 and similarly claim 17 recites,
The at least one statistic value comprises a mean and a standard deviation of the velocities of the combinations .
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a mean and a standard deviation. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
wherein the processing circuit is configured to set a grouping range according to the mean and the standard deviation,
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of using a mean and a standard deviation to set. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
separate the velocities within the grouping range into a plurality of bins, and determine the corrected velocity according to a most repeating bin of the bins.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating corrected velocity. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 8 and similarly claim 18 recites,
the processing circuit is configured to set the grouping range to be from the mean minus the standard deviation to the mean plus the standard deviation.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a grouping range. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 9 and similarly claim 19 recites,
the processing circuit is configured to set a center of the most repeating bin to be the corrected velocity.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating corrected velocity. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 11 also recites,
obtain a plurality of RF signals with respect to an object
Obtaining a plurality of RF signals is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
measure a range and an angle of the object related to the radar system according to the RF signals
Measuring a range and an angle is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
obtain a plurality of combinations among the cycles, wherein each of the combinations corresponds to two of the cycles
Obtaining a plurality of combinations of cycles is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 11 also recites,
obtain a plurality of RF signals with respect to an object
Obtaining a plurality of RF signals is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
measure a range and an angle of the object related to the radar system according to the RF signals
Measuring a range and an angle is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
obtain a plurality of combinations among the cycles, wherein each of the combinations corresponds to two of the cycles
Obtaining a plurality of combinations of cycles is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 and similarly claim 11 further recites,
a plurality of radio frequency (RF) circuits
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
a processing circuit electrically connected to the radio frequency circuits
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit
This limitation describes mere instructions to apply an exception in the form of applying a commonplace mathematical algorithm (See specification, [0040]) being applied on a general purpose computer. See 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 and similarly claim 20 further recites,
the processing circuit is configured to perform a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm according to the corrected velocity.
This limitation describes mere instructions to apply an exception in the form of applying a computer algorithm, being performed on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMA(US20220128682A1) in view of Lueder (US6721645B2).
Regarding claim 1, Shima discloses
A radar system, comprising: a plurality of radio frequency (RF) circuits (FIG.1A, Part10), configured to obtain a plurality of RF signals with respect to an object (“a target detection apparatus” [0020]); and a processing circuit electrically connected to the radio frequency circuits (FIG.1B, Part.701), and configured to measure a range (“the radar device 10 observes a distance R to a target “ [0024]) and an angle of the object related to the radar system according to the RF signals (“and an azimuth θ of the target” [0024]), and calculate at least one coordinate according to the range and the angle (“The radar device 10 estimates a lateral position x, a longitudinal position y“ [0024]) in each of a plurality of cycles (“The detection unit is configured to emit radar waves every preset measurement cycle” [0020]), wherein the processing circuit is configured to obtain a plurality of combinations among the cycles (“ at S150, the processing unit 70 performs a history tracking/target recognition process to recognize targets by tracking”[0045]), wherein each of the combinations corresponds to two of the cycles (“In tracking, each pair registered at S140 in the current measurement cycle is a current pair, and each pair registered at S140 in the previous measurement cycle is a previous pair.” [0045]), […] wherein the processing circuit is configured to calculate at least one statistic value of the velocities of the combinations, and calculate a corrected velocity according to the at least one statistic value. (“The relative velocity of the subjected-to-determination pair representing the connection sequence may be […] the average of relative velocities”)
SHIMA discloses calculating velocity, but does not explicitly disclose its calculation according to the corresponding coordinates or producing two trajectories. Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. Lueder discloses, wherein for each of the combinations, the processing circuit is configured to calculate at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference (“in each measuring cycle, angle variations d.alpha..sub.i are averaged over the collective detected objects, and divided by the time duration between the measuring cycles to generate a collective angular velocity .alpha.Dt.sub.koll.” [Col.3, ll.63-67]) wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit, the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity (“ As the rotation of vehicle 1 about the vertical axis, yaw rate PsiDt describes the instantaneous curvature k of travel trajectory 6 according to FIG. 1” [Col.4, ll.28-32])and the corrected velocity (“Block 20 in FIG. 2 symbolically shows that curvature k of travel trajectory 6 is corrected for detected objects i in preset time intervals." [Col.3, ll.59-61]), respectively, and are utilized to detect difference before and after correction (“This curvature is then generated from the sum of trajectory curvature k.sub.Traj and correction curvature k.sub.Corr, which is generated, in turn, from the ambient yaw rate, as described further above” [Col.5, ll.15-18]).
Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA with the teachings of Lueder to incorporate the features calculating at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference and wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit, the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity and the corrected velocity, respectively, and are utilized to detect difference before and after correction so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement result [Col.2, Par.6, Lueder]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, Shima discloses
A velocity correction method for a radar system and performed by a processing circuit, the velocity correction method comprising: obtaining, by a plurality of radio frequency (RF) circuits (FIG.1A, Part10), a plurality of RF signals with respect to an object (“a target detection apparatus” [0020]); measuring a range (“the radar device 10 observes a distance R to a target “ [0024]) and an angle of the object related to the radar system according to the RF signals (“and an azimuth θ of the target” [0024]), and calculating at least one coordinate according to the range and the angle in each of a plurality of cycles(“The radar device 10 estimates a lateral position x, a longitudinal position y“ [0024]); obtaining a plurality of combinations among the cycles (“ at S150, the processing unit 70 performs a history tracking/target recognition process to recognize targets by tracking”[0045]), wherein each of the combinations corresponds to two of the cycles (“In tracking, each pair registered at S140 in the current measurement cycle is a current pair, and each pair registered at S140 in the previous measurement cycle is a previous pair.” [0045]);[…] and calculating at least one statistic value of the velocities of the combinations, and calculating a corrected velocity according to the at least one statistic value. (“The relative velocity of the subjected-to-determination pair representing the connection sequence may be […] the average of relative velocities”).
SHIMA discloses calculating velocity, but does not explicitly disclose its calculation according to the corresponding coordinates or producing two trajectories. Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. Lueder discloses, for each of the combinations, calculating at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference (“in each measuring cycle, angle variations d.alpha..sub.i are averaged over the collective detected objects, and divided by the time duration between the measuring cycles to generate a collective angular velocity .alpha.Dt.sub.koll.” [Col.3, ll.63-67])
wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit, the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity (“ As the rotation of vehicle 1 about the vertical axis, yaw rate PsiDt describes the instantaneous curvature k of travel trajectory 6 according to FIG. 1” [Col.4, ll.28-32]) and the corrected velocity (“Block 20 in FIG. 2 symbolically shows that curvature k of travel trajectory 6 is corrected for detected objects i in preset time intervals." [Col.3, ll.59-61]), respectively, and are utilized to detect difference before and after correction (“This curvature is then generated from the sum of trajectory curvature k.sub.Traj and correction curvature k.sub.Corr, which is generated, in turn, from the ambient yaw rate, as described further above” [Col.5, ll.15-18]).
Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA with the teachings of Lueder to incorporate the features calculating at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference and wherein two trajectories are produced by the processing circuit, the two trajectories correspond to the at least one velocity and the corrected velocity, respectively, and are utilized to detect difference before and after correction so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement result [Col.2, Par.6, Lueder]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMA(US20220128682A1) as modified by Lueder (US6721645B2) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of STACHNIK(CN115222766A).
Regarding claim 2, SHIMA as modified by Lueder discloses all the limitations of claim 1. SHIMA as modified by Lueder discloses calculating x and y coordinates of target position, but does not explicitly disclose the use of the claimed equation. STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. STACHNIK discloses wherein, the at least one coordinate comprises a first coordinate and a second coordinate, and the processing circuit is configured to calculate the first coordinate and the second coordinate based on following equations: xi = Ri* cos(theta) yt=Ri* sin(theta) wherein R1 is the range measured in a i-th cycle of the cycles, is the angle measured in the i-th cycle, x is the first coordinate calculated in the i-th cycle, y is the second coordinate calculated in the i-th cycle, and i is a positive integer (EQU.4).
STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder with the teachings of STACHNIK to incorporate the features calculating target location using the tragicomic position function so as to gain the advantage of reducing computation complexity. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 2. SHIMA discloses calculating velocity, but does not explicitly disclose the use of the claimed equation. Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. Lueder discloses wherein, the at least one velocity comprises a first velocity and a second velocity, a k-th combination of the combinations corresponds to the i-th cycle and a j-th cycle, and the processing circuit is configured to calculate the first velocity and the second velocity based on following equations: [Equation not reproduced] wherein Vx,k is the first velocity of the k-th combination, Vy,k is the second velocity of the k-th combination, AT is cycle time, and k is a positive integer (“in each measuring cycle, angle variations d.alpha..sub.i are averaged over the collective detected objects, and divided by the time duration between the measuring cycles to generate a collective angular velocity .alpha.Dt.sub.koll.” [Col.3, ll.63-67]).
Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA with the teachings of Lueder to incorporate the features calculating at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement result [Col.2, Par.6, Lueder]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Shima discloses wherein, the processing circuit is configured to determine if a number of the cycles (“ The determination score in the current measurement cycle is calculated by adding the total of the scores assigned to the connection sequences to the determination score calculated in the previous measurement cycle (hereinafter referred to as the previous score)” [0066]) is greater than a cycle count, and if not, process a next cycle, and if yes, stop processing the next cycle (“At S400, the processing unit 70 compares the determination score calculated at S380 or S390 with a score threshold. If the determination score is greater than the score threshold, then the processing unit 70 proceeds to S410. If the determination score is equal to or less than the score threshold, the processing unit 70 proceeds to S420.” [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Shima discloses wherein, the at least one statistic value comprises a mean (“average of relative velocities “ [0062])[…], wherein the processing circuit is configured to set a grouping range according to the mean […] (“average of relative velocities of the starting point pair and a plurality of subjected-to-determination pairs in proximity to the starting point pair” [0062]), separate the velocities within the grouping range into a plurality of bins (“The frequency bin is a frequency range as a unit scale of the FFT spectrum” [0039]), and determine the corrected velocity according to a most repeating bin of the bins (“ The relative velocity of the subjected-to-determination pair representing the connection sequence may be the […] the average of relative velocities” [0062]).
SHIMA as modified by Lueder does not explicitly disclose the application of standard deviation as a statistic value. STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. STACHNIK discloses, a standard deviation of the velocities of the combinations (the corresponding standard deviation can be estimated based on […] distance change rate.” [n0016]).
STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder with the teachings of STACHNIK to incorporate the features calculating standard deviation so as to gain the advantage of improving velocity estimate accuracy [n0014, STACHNIK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Shima discloses wherein, the processing circuit is configured to set a center of the most repeating bin to be the corrected velocity (“ The relative velocity of the subjected-to-determination pair representing the connection sequence may be the […] the average of relative velocities” [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, SHIMA as modified by Lueder discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Shima as modified by Lueder does not explicitly disclose the use of a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm. STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. STACHNIK discloses wherein, the processing circuit is configured to perform a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm according to the corrected velocity (“the Kalman filter used for object tracking” [n0026]).
STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder with the teachings of STACHNIK to incorporate the features of a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm so as to gain the advantage of improving velocity estimate accuracy [n0014, STACHNIK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, , SHIMA as modified by Lueder discloses all the limitations of claim 11. SHIMA as modified by Lueder discloses calculating x and y coordinates of target position, but does not explicitly disclose the use of the claimed equation. STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. STACHNIK discloses wherein, the at least one coordinate comprises a first coordinate and a second coordinate, and the processing circuit is configured to calculate the first coordinate and the second coordinate based on following equations: xi = Ri* cos(theta) yt=Ri* sin(theta) wherein R1 is the range measured in a i-th cycle of the cycles, is the angle measured in the i-th cycle, x is the first coordinate calculated in the i-th cycle, y is the second coordinate calculated in the i-th cycle, and i is a positive integer (EQU.4).
STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder with the teachings of STACHNIK to incorporate the features calculating target location using the tragicomic position function so as to gain the advantage of reducing computation complexity. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 12. SHIMA discloses calculating velocity, but does not explicitly disclose the use of the claimed equation. Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. Lueder discloses wherein, the at least one velocity comprises a first velocity and a second velocity, a k-th combination of the combinations corresponds to the i-th cycle and a j-th cycle, and the processing circuit is configured to calculate the first velocity and the second velocity based on following equations: [Equation not reproduced] wherein Vx,k is the first velocity of the k-th combination, Vy,k is the second velocity of the k-th combination, AT is cycle time, and k is a positive integer (“in each measuring cycle, angle variations d.alpha..sub.i are averaged over the collective detected objects, and divided by the time duration between the measuring cycles to generate a collective angular velocity .alpha.Dt.sub.koll.” [Col.3, ll.63-67]).
Lueder teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA with the teachings of Lueder to incorporate the features calculating at least one velocity according to the corresponding coordinates and a cycle difference so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement result [Col.2, Par.6, Lueder]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Shima discloses wherein, before the step of calculating the at least one statistic value, the velocity correction method further comprises: determining if a number of the cycles (“ The determination score in the current measurement cycle is calculated by adding the total of the scores assigned to the connection sequences to the determination score calculated in the previous measurement cycle (hereinafter referred to as the previous score)” [0066]) is greater than a cycle count, and if not, process a next cycle, and if yes, stop processing the next cycle (“At S400, the processing unit 70 compares the determination score calculated at S380 or S390 with a score threshold. If the determination score is greater than the score threshold, then the processing unit 70 proceeds to S410. If the determination score is equal to or less than the score threshold, the processing unit 70 proceeds to S420.” [0068]).
Regarding claim 17, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Shima discloses wherein, the at least one statistic value comprises a mean […] of the velocities of the combinations(“average of relative velocities “ [0062]), and velocity correction method further comprises: setting a grouping range according to the mean […](“average of relative velocities of the starting point pair and a plurality of subjected-to-determination pairs in proximity to the starting point pair” [0062]), separate the velocities within the grouping range into a plurality of bins (“The frequency bin is a frequency range as a unit scale of the FFT spectrum” [0039]), and determine the corrected velocity according to a most repeating bin of the bins(“ The relative velocity of the subjected-to-determination pair representing the connection sequence may be the […] the average of relative velocities” [0062]).
SHIMA as modified by Lueder does not explicitly disclose the application of standard deviation as a statistic value. STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. STACHNIK discloses, a standard deviation of the velocities of the combinations (the corresponding standard deviation can be estimated based on […] distance change rate.” [n0016]).
STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder with the teachings of STACHNIK to incorporate the features calculating standard deviation so as to gain the advantage of improving velocity estimate accuracy [n0014, STACHNIK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Shima discloses, setting a center of the most repeating bin to be the corrected velocity (“ The relative velocity of the subjected-to-determination pair representing the connection sequence may be the […] the average of relative velocities” [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, SHIMA as modified by Lueder discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Shima does as modified by Lueder not explicitly disclose the use of a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm. STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. STACHNIK discloses, the processing circuit is configured to perform a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm according to the corrected velocity (“the Kalman filter used for object tracking” [n0026]).
STACHNIK teaches in the same field of endeavor of target velocity estimation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder with the teachings of STACHNIK to incorporate the features of a clustering algorithm, an association algorithm, or a tracking algorithm so as to gain the advantage of improving velocity estimate accuracy [n0014, STACHNIK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMA(US20220128682A1) as modified by Lueder (US6721645B2) and STACHNIK(CN115222766A), as applied to claims 3-4 and 13-14 above, and in further view of MO(CN115598641A).
Regarding claim 5, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 4. SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK do not appear to explicitly disclose a range threshold. Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. Mo discloses wherein, the processing circuit is configured to determine, in one of the cycles, if the corresponding range is greater than a range threshold, and if yes, set the cycle count to be a first value (“In response to the absolute difference between the distance of the i-th sub-target and the distance of the j-th sub-target not being less than a distance threshold in step S703” [n0083]), and if not, set the cycle count to be a second value, wherein the first value is greater than the second value (“In response to the absolute difference between the distance of the i-th sub-target and the distance of the j-th sub-target being less than the distance threshold, proceed to step S704” [n0080]).
Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK with the teachings of Mo to incorporate the features of a range threshold so as to gain the advantage of reducing radar system complexity [n0011, Mo]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 3. SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK do not appear to explicitly disclose a velocity threshold. Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. Mo discloses wherein, the processing circuit is configured to determine if a difference among the first velocities of n continuous cycles is less than a velocity threshold and a difference among the second velocities of the n continuous cycles is less than the velocity threshold (“determine whether the absolute difference between the velocity of the i-th sub-target and the velocity of the j-th sub-target is less than the velocity threshold” [n0080]), and if yes, stop processing a next cycle (“in response to the absolute difference between the velocity of the i-th sub-target and the velocity of the j-th sub-target not being less than a velocity threshold in step S704, proceed to step S706” [n0083]), and if not, process the next cycle, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 1 (“If the absolute difference between the velocity of the i-th sub-target and the velocity of the jth sub-target is less than the velocity threshold, proceed to step S705” [n0081]).
Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK with the teachings of Mo to incorporate the features of a velocity threshold so as to gain the advantage of reducing radar system complexity [n0011, Mo]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 14. SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK do not appear to explicitly disclose a range threshold. Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. Mo discloses, determining, in one of the cycles, if the corresponding range is greater than a range threshold, and if yes, set the cycle count to be a first value (“In response to the absolute difference between the distance of the i-th sub-target and the distance of the j-th sub-target not being less than a distance threshold in step S703” [n0083]), and if not, set the cycle count to be a second value, wherein the first value is greater than the second value (“In response to the absolute difference between the distance of the i-th sub-target and the distance of the j-th sub-target being less than the distance threshold, proceed to step S704” [n0080]).
Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK with the teachings of Mo to incorporate the features of a range threshold so as to gain the advantage of reducing radar system complexity [n0011, Mo]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 13. SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK do not appear to explicitly disclose a velocity threshold. Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. Mo discloses wherein, before the step of calculating the at least one statistic value, the velocity correction method further comprises: determining if a difference among the first velocities of n continuous cycles is less than a velocity threshold and a difference among the second velocities of the n continuous cycles is less than the velocity threshold d(“determine whether the absolute difference between the velocity of the i-th sub-target and the velocity of the j-th sub-target is less than the velocity threshold” [n0080]), and if yes, stop processing a next cycle (“in response to the absolute difference between the velocity of the i-th sub-target and the velocity of the j-th sub-target not being less than a velocity threshold in step S704, proceed to step S706” [n0083]), and if not, process the next cycle, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 1 (“If the absolute difference between the velocity of the i-th sub-target and the velocity of the jth sub-target is less than the velocity threshold, proceed to step S705” [n0081]).
Mo teaches in the same filed of endeavor of radar system design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK with the teachings of Mo to incorporate the features of a velocity threshold so as to gain the advantage of reducing radar system complexity [n0011, Mo]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMA(US20220128682A1) as modified by Lueder (US6721645B2) and STACHNIK(CN115222766A), as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and in further view of Siguel(US5075101A).
Regarding claim 8, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 7. SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK do not appear to explicitly disclose a grouping range set around one standard deviation of a mean. Siguel teaches in the same filed of endeavor of statistical data processing. Siguel discloses wherein, the processing circuit is configured to set the grouping range to be from the mean minus the standard deviation to the mean plus the standard deviation (“a reference range is computed, usually the mean plus or minus one or two standard deviations” [Col.20, ll.55-56]).
Siguel teaches in the same filed of endeavor of statistical data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK with the teachings of Siguel to incorporate the features of a grouping range set around one standard deviation of a mean so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [Col.10, Par.5, Mo]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, SHIMA as modified by Lueder and further modified by STACHNIK discloses all the limitations of claim 17. SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK do not appear to explicitly disclose a grouping range set around one standard deviation of a mean. Siguel teaches in the same filed of endeavor of statistical data processing. Siguel discloses, setting the grouping range to be from the mean minus the standard deviation to the mean plus the standard deviation (“a reference range is computed, usually the mean plus or minus one or two standard deviations” [Col.20, ll.55-56]).
Siguel teaches in the same filed of endeavor of statistical data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SHIMA as modified by Lueder and STACHNIK with the teachings of Siguel to incorporate the features of a grouping range set around one standard deviation of a mean so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [Col.10, Par.5, Mo]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
SHARMA(US20240214786A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0054] “A “coherent cluster velocity” refers to the velocity range of VRUs 116 in a cluster such that the differences in speed and heading between any of the VRUs in a cluster are below a predefined threshold”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights