DETAILED FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the amendment of January 29, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 2, 3, and 16 stand CANCELLED.
It is further noted that each of independent claims 1, 13, and 15 has been significantly amended, necessitating further search and examination. New rejections are set forth below.
The drawing sheet of January 29, 2026 is hereby APPROVED.
The drawing figure of the drawing sheet of January 29, 2026 is hereby accepted as FORMAL.
On page 10 of the amendment, it is noted that Applicant has argued as shown below:
“Claims 1-5 and 13-16 are rejected as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0364624 ("Bharadwaj"). This rejection is respectfully traversed.
Representative amended claim 1 recites:
providing a subset of the output data; and
displaying a visualization of the subset of the output data in
a spatial coordinate system of the one or more radar sensors,
wherein each of the spatial points is associated with a range and
an angle of a reflected radar signal.
Bharadwaj does not teach or suggest at least these newly added features of amended claim 1. Bharadwaj describes general displaying. For example, Bharadwaj teaches that "object detection and tracking info ... are displayed." Bharadwaj, [0052]. Nothing in Bharadwaj teaches the visualization of data in a spatial coordinate system of the one or more radar sensors, wherein each of the spatial points is associated with a range and an angle of a reflected radar signal. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable for at least these reasons.
Independent claims 13 and 15 are allowable for at least similar reasons as independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-4 and 16 depend from one of independent claims 1, 13, and 15 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as the respective independent claim.”
Applicant has argued with reference to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 13-16 generally that the amendment of independent claims 1 and 13 allegedly overcomes the prior art of rejection of claims 1-5 and 13-16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bharadwaj, Jr. et al (‘624) as set forth in the office action of October 8, 20205. This amendment of independent claims 1 and 13 necessitates further examination and a new rejection, which is set forth below. In that claims 2-3 and 16 stand cancelled, it is presumed that the reference to claims 2, 3, and 16 is an unintentional error in the remarks.
On page 11 of the amendment, it is noted that Applicant has argued as shown below:
“Claims 6-12 are rejected as being obvious over Bharadwaj in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0355817 ("Gillian"). This rejection is respectfully traversed.
Claims 6-12 depend from independent claim 1. Gillian does not remedy the deficiencies of Bharadwaj with respect to claim 1. Therefore, claims 6-12 are allowable for at least the same reasons as independent claim 1.”
The argument on page 11 of Applicant’s amendment is taken as a general allegation of the allowability of claims 6-12. Please see 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharadwaj et al. (‘624) in view of Slater (US 4,307,396 A), hereinafter Slater (‘396).
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.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radar systems.
Regarding independent claim 1 as newly-amended, Bharadwaj (‘624) plainly discloses, “A method for analyzing radar data” (lines 1-2), noting, for example, paragraph [0004] at line 2 (“processing device”); paragraph [0021] at line 2 (“methods”); and, paragraph [0028] at line 8 (“analysis”).
The claim 1, “acquiring the radar data from one or more radar sensors” (line 3) is met in Bharadwaj (‘624), at least, by the receiving of radar data by means of the disclosed antennas (e.g., left portion of Figure 5).
The claim 1, “processing the radar data to derive output data, wherein the output data includes spatial points with associated features” (lines 4-5) is met in Bharadwaj (‘624) by item 510 in Figure 5.
The claim 1, “receiving the output data as input data” (line 6) is met in Bharadwaj (‘624) by the receiving of data at the input of either item 520 or of 530 in Figure 5.
The claim 1, “analyzing the radar data based on the input data” (line 7) is met in Bharadwaj (‘624) by the action of item 520 and/or item 530 in Figure 5.
However, the newly-added steps of “providing a subset of the output data” (line 8) and of “displaying a visualization of the subset of the output data in a spatial coordinate system of the one or more radar sensors, wherein each of the spatial points is associated with a range and an angle of a reflected signal” (lines 9-11) are not present in Bharadwaj (‘624) Jr. et al (‘624).
Slater (‘396) teaches the use of a microprocessor-controlled radar display with a radar for the advantage of displaying radar data “without the loss of critical data or flickering,” along with other advantages set forth in column 13 at lines 1-16. Slater (‘396) discloses that only radar echoes of importance are displayed (i.e., the “subset”), noting, for example, column 4 at lines 37-40 and 55-59. In Slater (‘396), even though the invention is explained using Cartesian coordinates, each point is associated with a “range and an angle of a reflected radar signal” (claim 1: line 11), noting, for example, please note column 6, lines 10-16 (especially noting, “antenna azimuth” and “ranges”).
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Bharadwaj (‘624) Jr. et al (‘624) method with the use of the Slater (‘396) device as taught by Slater (‘396) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Slater (‘396), with a reasonable likelihood of success. Thus, claim 1 as newly-amended is obvious over the applied combination.
The further limitations of dependent claim 4 are met by Bharadwaj (‘624) of the applied combination, noting, for example, paragraph [0004] at lines 10-15 (“object parameters”); paragraph [0006] at lines 10-15; and, page 2, left column at lines 2-17.
The further limitations of dependent claim 5 are met by Bharadwaj (‘624) of the applied combination, noting, for example, page 2, left column at lines 12-17; paragraph [0027] at lines 10-14; and, paragraph [0032].
The remarks with respect to independent claim 13 and dependent claim 14 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claims 13 and 14 are the apparatus claims corresponding to the method of independent claim 1. Please, also, see paragraph [0004]; paragraph [0021] at lines 1-2; and, page 6, right column at lines 1-25.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 15 and dependent claim 16 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. Claim 15 is met in Bharadwaj (‘624) by the software running on the “radar data processing device” (e.g., paragraph [0004] at lines 1-2) and in memory storage of the “radar data processing device.”
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.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharadwaj et al. (‘624) in view of Slater (‘396) and further in view of Gillian et al (US 2020/0355817 A1), hereinafter Gillian et al (‘817).
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.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radar systems.
The further limitations of dependent claim 6 are not disclosed in the applied combination of Bharadwaj et al. (‘624) in view of Slater (‘396). However, Gillian et al (‘817) teaches the use of machine-learning models with neural networks and/or a list of other networks in paragraph [0005] at lines 1-8 for the advantages taught in paragraph [0005] at lines 12-15. So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gillian et al (‘817) with the applied combination of Bharadwaj et al. (‘624) in view of Slater (‘396) as taught by Gillian et al (‘817) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Gillian et al (‘817), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 7 on lines 1-6 are met by Bharadwaj et al. (‘624) in view of Slater (‘396) and further in view of Gillian et al (‘817) as applied above to dependent claim 6, noting the angle finding in Gillian et al (‘817) and the use of confidence metrics in Bharadwaj et al. (‘624). As for lines 7-8 of dependent claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a normalization compensation model trained to derive a normalization of the radar data” to ensure uniformity of data in processing.
Looking, now, to the further limitations of dependent claim 8, in the training disclosed in Gillian et al (‘817) of the applied combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “a ground truth record” in order to ensure that the training is done according to a reliable value, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use additionally “one or more second machine learning models” in order to optimize the operation of the claimed method by learning additional parameters.
Next, taking the further limitations of dependent claim 10, in that the first machine leaning models contain a trained regression model in the applied combination (e.g., see Gillian: paragraphs [58] and [63]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that additional machine learning models would likewise have trained regression models so that the second machine learning models would supplement the functioning of the first machine learning models, with a reasonable likelihood of success. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second machine learning models with a trained classification model as in the first machine learning models so that the second machine learning models would supplement the functioning of the first machine learning models, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 11 are met by the applied combination as applied above to claims 10, 9, 5, and 1, except for the claimed use of “lidar.” Please note the disclosed radar in Bharadwaj et al. (‘624) of the applied combination. Also, please note the disclosed camera in Gillian et al (‘817) at paragraphs [36], [45], [60], and [61]. As for the claimed use of “lidar” in dependent claim 11, in that lidar is merely a laser radar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art that since the applied combination uses radar, it could equally well use the analogous laser radar or lidar, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 12, in the training disclosed in Gillian et al (‘817) of the applied combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “a ground truth record” in order to ensure that the training is done according to a reliable value, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Finality of this Office Action
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights