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 claim amendment, filed 11/25/2025, has been entered into the record. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 stand rejected
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 16-17 have been canceled by the applicant
The claim objections set out in the previous Office Action have been overcome by applicant’s amendment
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set out in the previous Office Action have been overcome by applicant’s amendment
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 3, para. 3, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant’s amendments to said claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 set out in the previous Office Action However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoo (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0135639 A1), as necessitated by applicant’s amendment to said claims.
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, 6-7, 9, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninos et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0118390 A1), hereinafter Ninos, in view of Yoo (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0135639 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ninos discloses (note: what Ninos does not teach is struck through),
A method performed by a radar sensor system (para. 0005, “According to specific embodiments of the present invention, a method and a device for personal tracking and optionally, additionally for hand tracking, are provided, in particular using two radar sensors, or in other words a millimeter wave radar system.”), the method comprising: configuring a first radar sensor and a second radar sensor to have overlapping fields of view (fig. 5, object 501 is in view for both radar sensors 110, which requires that they have overlapping fields of view), wherein the first radar sensor has a first predetermined rotation angle relative to straight ahead and the second radar sensor has a second predetermined rotation angle relative to straight ahead (fig. 5, the left and right radar sensors 110 both have a first rotation angle of 0o relative to normal. The examiner notes that a rotation angle of 0o constitutes a rotation angle under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of the specification. See, e.g., para. 0012 of the instant application); transmitting a first signal from a first transmit antenna in a first radar sensor; transmitting a second signal from a second transmit antenna in a second radar sensor (para. 0048, “Each of the two radar sensors 110 includes a transmitting antenna 211, a receiving antenna 212, and an electrical circuit system, as is available in the field of radar sensors, for example including an output amplifier, a multiplexer, and the like. Each of radar sensors 110 has a field of view 213. In addition, FIG. 2 schematically illustrates an overlapping area 214 of fields of view 113 of radar sensors 110.” See also fig. 2 and fig. 5); detecting an object within the overlapping fields of view at the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (para. 0103, “Radar sensors 110 measure radial velocity v1r and v2r in each snapshot.”); estimating vector velocity information vx and vy for the object, where vx represents a coordinate along an x-axis and v, represents a coordinate along a y-axis; (eq. 6, fig. 5); generating a radar measurement vector z that comprises position information px and py for the object, where px represents a coordinate along the x-axis and pv represents a coordinate along the y-axis (eq. 5); incorporating the vector velocity information vx and vy into the radar measurement vector z (para. 0109, “The velocity may then be used in the measurement vector of the Kalman filter.” Thus, the velocity vector is taught as being optionally incorporated into the measurement vector z of eq. 4. Per eq. 6, the velocity vector v includes vx and vy); and iteratively performing a measurement update using the measurement vector z, with velocity information incorporated therein and a linear Kalman filter (para. 0074, “The processing of the Kalman filter is subdivided into two stages, namely, prediction and correction. For the former, a state estimation is computed, using the kinematic model and the previously computed noise covariance. The latter computes the residuals using the new measurement and the state estimation, and then computes the Kalman gain and corrects the state estimation.” The examiner notes that, per para. 0109, the velocity may be incorporated into the measurement vector z of the Kalman filter).
Yoo teaches,
…configuring a first radar sensor and a second radar sensor to have overlapping fields of view (fig. 3, area 330), wherein the first radar sensor has a first predetermined rotation angle relative to straight ahead and the second radar sensor has a second predetermined rotation angle relative to straight ahead that is different from the first predetermined rotation angle, wherein the first predetermined rotation angle and the second predetermined rotation angle are known values (fig. 3, front corner radars are shown having different mounting angles. See also para. 0040, “For instance, the corner radar may be a short-range radar (SRR), and may have a detection range of 0 m to 100 m and an angle of view of ±75 degrees. For example, the first area 310 may include an overlap area of the front side where the angle of view of a left corner radar mounted on the front-left side of the vehicle and the angle of view of a right corner radar mounted on the front-right side of the vehicle overlap.” See also para. 0043, “For example, the overlap area 330 may be an area in which the angle of view of the short range (0 to 60 m) is ±40 degrees and the angle of view of the long range (60 to 100 m) is ±10 degrees. Specifically, in the short-range area (0 to 60 m) of the overlap area 300, point cloud data for the short-range area of the corner radar may be used as input information of the learning model.” The examiner notes that using the overlap area 330 as input data necessitates knowing the mounting angles of the corner radar devices relative to straight ahead)…
Ninos and Yoo are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ninos with the different known radar angles of Yoo because the different known radar angles of Yoo increases the total field of view of the radar sensors.
Regarding claim 6, Ninos in view of Yoo teaches the method of claim 1. Ninos further teaches,
…wherein estimating the vector velocity information vx and vy comprises using a linear least squares formula to estimate the velocity values when multiple data points representing multiple values for angle and velocity are available (para. 0107, “The above-mentioned system is overdetermined; the pseudo-inverse is computed and the velocity vector is estimated as in equation (10).” The examiner notes that equation 10 in combination with equation 11 represents a least-squared solution for v).
Regarding claim 7, Ninos in view of Yoo teaches the method of claim 6. Ninos further teaches,
…wherein the linear least squares formula is a Moore-Penrose inverse linear least squares formula (para. 0107, “The above-mentioned system is overdetermined; the pseudo-inverse is computed and the velocity vector is estimated as in equation (10).” The examiner notes that the term (HTH)-1HT is the Moore-Penrose inverse and eq. 11 shows a linear least squares formula for eq. 10).
Claim 9 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Ninos further discloses,
A radar sensor system comprising (fig. 2, radar sensor system 100): a first radar sensor and at least a second radar sensor (fig. 2, radar sensors 110 each have a transmit antenna 211 and a receive antenna 212); one or more processors configured to perform acts comprising…(para. 0034, “Also advantageous is a computer program product or computer program including program code that may be stored on a machine-readable medium or memory medium such as a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or an optical memory, and used for carrying out, implementing, and/or controlling the steps of the method according to one of the specific embodiments described above, in particular when the program product or program is executed on a computer or a device.”).
Claim 13 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1. Regarding claim 15, Ninos further discloses,
A central processing unit comprising: a computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform certain acts; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, the acts comprising…(para. 0034, “Also advantageous is a computer program product or computer program including program code that may be stored on a machine-readable medium or memory medium such as a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or an optical memory, and used for carrying out, implementing, and/or controlling the steps of the method according to one of the specific embodiments described above, in particular when the program product or program is executed on a computer or a device.”).
Claim 19 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 6.
Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninos in view of Yoo as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Grebner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0119187 A1), hereinafter Grebner.
Regarding claim 8, Ninos in view of Yoo discloses the method of claim 1. The prior combination of Ninos and Yoo does not disclose,
…wherein the first and second radar sensors are deployed on an automated vehicle
Grebner discloses,
…wherein the first and second radar sensors are deployed on an automated vehicle (para. 0040, “The mobile platform may be any platform that can be moved, for example a vehicle. Examples of a mobile platform include…an autonomous vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy the method of Ninos in view of Yoo on the autonomous vehicle of Grebner because the techniques that are used for gesture recognition as in Ninos in view of Yoo can also be used to solve the problem of detecting moving objects for an autonomous vehicle.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 8.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 8.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninos in view of Yoo as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Cliff Notes. (Cliff Notes. Solving systems of equations (simultaneous equations). August 15, 2015. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/algebra/algebra-i/equations-with-two-variables/solving-systems-of-equations-simultaneous-equations/).
Regarding claim 5, Ninos in view of Yoo teaches the method of claim 1. Ninos further discloses (note: what Ninos does not further disclose is struck through),
…wherein estimating the vector velocity information vx and vy comprises (eq. 6 shows a two-equation system in matrix form when only one value of angle and velocity is available for the object from each radar device. However, Ninos does not explicitly teaching solving said system).
Cliff Notes discloses,
…wherein estimating the vector velocity information vx and vy comprises solving a two-equation system when only one value of angle and velocity is available for the object rom each radar sensor (para. 1, “If you have two different equations with the same two unknowns in each, you can solve for both unknowns. There are three common methods for solving: addition/subtraction, substitution, and graphing.”).
Cliff Notes is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses methods of solving a system of equations that are pertinent to fusing multiple velocity measurements together. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the methods of Cliff Notes to solve the system of equations of Ninos in view of Yoo because the methods of Cliff notes are three of the most common methods of solving two-equation systems of equations.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same reasons and citations as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same reasons and citations as claim 5.
Conclusion
The following art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Morgan, P. Least squares solution using the Moore-Penrose Inverse. 2025. https://www.pmorgan.com.au/tutorials/least-squares-solution-using-the-moore-penrose-inverse/. This article is not prior art to the claimed invention, but is noted as support for the examiner’s interpretation of eq. 10 of Ninos as teaching the Moore-Penrose Inverse. See the top of p. 2 of the enclosed PDF.
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