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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 03/25/2026, have been entered into the record. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/25/2026, see p. 8, paras. 3-6, are persuasive. The applicant argues that claim 1 as written differs from the teachings of Abdelghaffar because the “second path” of Abdelghaffar, namely the curve detected by the moving object, is not used to divide the road into a left area and a right area. Rather, Abdelghaffar divides the area based on the motion of the egovehicle. The examiner agrees that this is a relevant distinction, and further agrees that the difference between the invention as claimed and the teachings of Zhenhai—particularly the act of producing a first path to be included in either the left or the right area of the second path—is meaningful. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 as initially filed, the limitations of which have been added to the independent claims, is withdrawn.
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, 4-11, and 14-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “…receiving reception information obtained by detecting an object,” and then later recites the limitation, “…detecting a measurement based on the reception information, classifying the measurement as a moving object or a stationary object.” This amendment indicates that there is only one object being measured, and said object is defined as being either moving or stationary. However, the claim further recites, “…to perform a curve fitting on the stationary object to produce a first path…wherein the producer is configured to produce a second path by performing the curve fitting on the moving object.”
There is a lack of antecedent basis for reception information containing both a stationary object and a moving object, because the claim as amended makes it clear that there is a single measurement of a single object. The metes and bounds of these limitations in combination are unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The first limitation recited indicates that the reception information is obtained by detecting a singular object, as evidenced by the use of the singular article “an.” However, a single object cannot then be used as both a moving object and a stationary object, as required by the limitations regarding curve fitting. A person of ordinary skill in the art could understand these claims, then, as being directed to either,
A detection of a single object, which is then classified as stationary or moving, and only those elements relevant to its classification are carried out by the producer and estimator.
A single radar detection containing multiple objects, which are then each classified as either moving or stationary
Thus, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 4-10 are rejected because they depend upon claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 14-20 are rejected because they depend upon claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Abdelghaffar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0075921 A1), hereinafter Abdelghaffar. Zhenhai et al. (G. Zhenhai, D. L. Dinh, H. Hongyu and L. Shunjie, "Study Lane Curvature Estimation Algorithm Based on Radar," 2017 9th International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation (ICMTMA), Changsha, China, 2017, pp. 72-76, doi: 10.1109/ICMTMA.2017.0025.), hereinafter Zhenhai, is also close prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Abdelghaffar teaches,
A radar control device (para. 0002, “The present invention relates to a method for operating radar sensors in a vehicle. Furthermore, the present invention relates to a computer program, which executes each step of the method when run on a computing unit, and a machine-readable storage medium, which stores the computer program. The present invention also relates to an electronic control unit, which is equipped to execute the method according to the present invention.”), comprising: a receiver configured to receive reception information obtained by detecting an object around a host vehicle (para. 0002, “At the outset, the targets T are received by the sensor S”); a producer configured to detect a measurement based on the reception information, to classify the measurement as a moving object or a stationary object (para. 0022, “The targets T are divided 1 into stationary targets TS and moving targets TB. For this purpose, the speed of each target is compared to the intrinsic speed of the vehicle and the difference is calculated.”), and to perform a curve fitting on the stationary object to produce a first path (para. 0023, “Finally, the road boundary yl(x), yr(x) is ascertained for each side. The boundary yR may be ascertained by curve fitting. By way of example, a second-order polynomial may be used for the curve fitting.”); and an estimator configured to estimate a vehicle driving path based on the first path (para. 0023, “Finally, the road boundary yl(x), yr(x) is ascertained for each side. The boundary yR may be ascertained by curve fitting. By way of example, a second-order polynomial may be used for the curve fitting. This is particularly suitable in the case of relatively straight roads, such as, e.g., an expressway (freeway), and requires relatively little computational expenditure. In the case of roads which have many curves, as is normal, e.g., in cities, a base spline (B spline) is used in the curve fitting.” The examiner notes that the road is being understood to be a vehicle driving path),
Zhenhai teaches,
…wherein the producer further produces a second path by performing the curve fitting on the moving object and produces the first path based on the second path (section V(A), para. 1, “If there are effective stationary objects and many target vehicles ahead at the same time. Due to the appearance range of two objects is random so the range of determining lane curvature is not homogenous. Therefore, to unify the range of determining lane curvature and take advantage the strong point of each method. The paper uses the method “weighted average fusion algorithm” to combine two methods above.” The examiner notes that the two methods above are the stationary target method and the target vehicles method (analogous to the second path). Thus, the first path is produced based on the second path because the final road curvature determination is made based on the path of the moving vehicle).
Zenhai does not teach
…wherein the producer divides an area around the host vehicle into a left area and a right area with respect to the second path and produces the first path to be included in any one area based on the stationary object.
Abdelghaffar teaches dividing the area around the vehicle into a left area and a right area, but does so with respect to the egovehicle rather than a detected moving object as required by claim 1 as written (para. 0023, “Finally, the road boundary yl(x), yr(x) is ascertained for each side. The boundary yR may be ascertained by curve fitting. By way of example, a second-order polynomial may be used for the curve fitting.” The examiner notes that the left and right areas are divided with respect to the path of the egovehicle ECU and thus are also divided with respect to the paths of moving vehicles T1 and T2.).
Thus, the combination of dividing the area around the host vehicle into a left area and a right area with respect to the second path with the requirement that the second path be determined by curve fitting radar returns from a moving object and the requirement that the first path be included in one area based on the stationary object renders claim 1 both novel and non-obvious over the teachings of the prior art of record.
Claims 4-10 are allowable because they depend upon, and thus include all the limitations of, claim 1.
Claim 11 is allowable for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1.
Claims 14-20 are allowable because they depend upon, and thus include all the limitations of, claim 11.
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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights