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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran (US 12146939) in view of Tuxen et al (US 20180156914) and Prados et al (US 20200174115)
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Curran teaches a computer-implemented method for object localization (abs, “motion characteristics of commonly detected objects can be used to enable the devices to determine a set of relative positions. Coordinate space transformations can then be computed based on the relative position”), comprising: identifying associations between measurements taken from a plurality of radar sensors by identifying measurements of a same object from different radar sensors (col 1, lines 50-67, “estimating, by the first electronic device based on a comparison of the first set of direction and range measurements with the second set of direction and range measurements, a position for the object relative to the second electronic device”), where each measurement includes a collection of K individual elements, wherein identifying the associations includes determining a permutation of the K elements of a first measurement of a first radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors in accordance with the K elements of a second measurement of a second radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors (col 1, lines 50-67, “the object includes gathering a first set of sensor measurements of the object via a first sensor transceiver and determining a first set of direction and range measurements to the object via the first set of sensor measurements, receiving a second set of direction and range measurements to the object from a second electronic device”): determining a shared coordinate system for the plurality of radar sensors based the identified associations (col 1, lines 50-67, “the position of the object relative to the second electronic device, a position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device, and storing a position of the first electronic device relative to the second electronic device. The relative positions can be used to compute a coordinate space transformation that enables the fusion of sensor data from multiple devices”)
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Tuxen teaches identifying translations and rotations between local coordinate systems of the plurality of radar sensors (para 7). It would have been obvious to modify Curran to include identifying translations and rotations between local coordinate systems of the plurality of radar sensors because it would combine the coordinate systems of the radar into a global coordinate system.
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Prados teaches determining a position of an object in the shared coordinate system, based on measurements of the object by the plurality of radar sensors (para 17 and 95), performing an action responsive to the determined position of the object (para 54 and claim 50). It would have been obvious to modify Curran to include determining a position of an object in the shared coordinate system, based on measurements of the object by the plurality of radar sensors and performing an action responsive to the determined position of the object because it is merely the use a known radar device of Prados to the known radar device of Curran ready for improvement to yield a predictable radar device.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Curran teaches the measurements include measurements of at least one of distance and speed (col 11, lines 22-31).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Tuxen teaches determining the permutation includes determining a distance between an element of the first measurement and an element of the second measurement (para 7). It would have been obvious to modify Curran to include determining the permutation includes determining a distance between an element of the first measurement and an element of the second measurement because it would combine the coordinate systems of the radar into a global coordinate system.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Tuxen teaches determining the permutation includes determining an angle between an element of the first measurement and an element of the second measurement. It would have been obvious to modify Curran to include determining the permutation includes determining an angle between an element of the first measurement and an element of the second measurement. because it would combine the coordinate systems of the radar into a global coordinate system.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 20160320476).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Johnson teaches identifying the associations includes identifying coarsely synchronized measurements between radar sensors, wherein the coarsely synchronized measurements differ from one another by less than an interval between consecutive measurements of a single radar sensor (para 139). It would have been obvious to modify Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados to include identifying the associations includes identifying coarsely synchronized measurements between radar sensors, wherein the coarsely synchronized measurements differ from one another by less than an interval between consecutive measurements of a single radar sensor because it would combine the coordinate systems of the radar into a global coordinate system.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Johnson teaches detecting an activity of the object, based on multiple determinations of the position of the object (para 139). It would have been obvious to modify Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados to include detecting an activity of the object, based on multiple determinations of the position of the object because it would combine the coordinate systems of the radar into a global coordinate system.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados in view of Johnson as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Puglielli et al (US 20210088624).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Puglielli teaches determining that the activity is hazardous (para 101). It would have been obvious to modify Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados in view of Johnson to include determining that the activity is hazardous because it would give an indication if someone could be injured in the activity.
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Puglielli teaches performing the responsive action includes automatically triggering a system that mitigates or eliminates a hazard posed by the activity (para 101). It would have been obvious to modify Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados in view of Johnson to include performing the responsive action includes automatically triggering a system that mitigates or eliminates a hazard posed by the activity because it would give an indication if someone could be injured in the activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Curran in view of Tuxen and Prados.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights