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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 6, in the phrase “on a reflector” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 1, lines 8 and 15, in the phrase “on the reflector,” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 1, lines 6-7, in the phrase “vehicles that is traveling,” the word “is” should be “are”
In Claim 1, line 7, in the phrase “in front of the own vehicle relative,” the word “relative” should be deleted
In Claim 3, line 7, in the phrase “on the reflector,” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 4, line 21, in the phrase “on the reflector,” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 5, pg. 3 line 1, in the phrase “on the reflector,” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 8, line 21, in the phrase “on a reflector” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 8, lines 23 and 30, in the phrase “on the reflector,” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 8, line 22, in the phrase “vehicles that is traveling,” the word “is” should be “are”
In Claim 8, line 23, in the phrase “in front of the own vehicle relative,” the word “relative” should be deleted
In Claim 9, line 5, in the phrase “on a reflector” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 9, lines 7 and 14, in the phrase “on the reflector,” the word “on” should be “of”
In Claim 9, lines 6, in the phrase “vehicles that is traveling,” the word “is” should be “are”
In Claim 9, lines 6-7, in the phrase “in front of the own vehicle relative,” the word “relative” should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, and 9 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, the claim recites the limitation “a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if there is a single positional information item or multiple positional information items to correspond to the multiple preceding vehicles. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “positional information items of reflectors of preceding vehicles.” This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claims 8 and 9.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the positional information” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as referring the positional information items in line 6. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claims 8 and 9.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a position of the reflector” in line 8. It is unclear if there is a single position or multiple positions to correspond to the multiple preceding vehicles. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “a position of a corresponding reflector.” This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claims 8 and 9.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “each specified position” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “specified positions.” This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claims 8 and 9.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “positional information item on the reflector” in line 15. It is unclear if there is a single positional information item or multiple positional information items to correspond to the multiple preceding vehicles. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “positional information items of reflectors.” This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claims 8 and 9.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the limitation “calculate a misalignment quantity of the radar device using maximum likelihood estimation in accordance with: a likelihood model that includes a predetermined correlation representing a reflector existence likelihood at each specified position relative to the radar device; and the retrieved positional information item on the reflector of each of the preceding vehicles relative to the radar device” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the limitation “a reflector information retrieving unit” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “based on a measurement result of a radar device installed in an own vehicle, a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles that is traveling in front of the own vehicle relative, the positional information on the reflector representing a position of the reflector” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
No, the limitation “a misalignment-quantity calculator” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitation “a reflector information retrieving unit” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “based on a measurement result of a radar device installed in an own vehicle, a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles that is traveling in front of the own vehicle relative, the positional information on the reflector representing a position of the reflector” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
No, the limitation “a misalignment-quantity calculator” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the limitation “calculate a misalignment quantity of the radar device using maximum likelihood estimation in accordance with: a likelihood model that includes a predetermined correlation representing a reflector existence likelihood at each specified position relative to the radar device; and the retrieved positional information item on the reflector of each of the preceding vehicles relative to the radar device” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the limitation “a set of program instructions that causes at least one processor to” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “retrieve, based on a measurement result of a radar device installed in an own vehicle, a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles that is traveling in front of the own vehicle relative, the positional information on the reflector representing a position of the reflector” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitation “a set of program instructions that causes at least one processor to” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “retrieve, based on a measurement result of a radar device installed in an own vehicle, a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles that is traveling in front of the own vehicle relative, the positional information on the reflector representing a position of the reflector” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the limitation “calculating a misalignment quantity of the radar device using maximum likelihood estimation in accordance with: a likelihood model that includes a predetermined correlation representing a reflector existence likelihood at each specified position relative to the radar device; and the retrieved positional information item on the reflector of each of the preceding vehicles relative to the radar device” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the limitation “a processor” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “retrieving, based on a measurement result of a radar device installed in an own vehicle, a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles that is traveling in front of the own vehicle relative, the positional information on the reflector representing a position of the reflector” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitation “a processor” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “retrieving, based on a measurement result of a radar device installed in an own vehicle, a positional information item on a reflector of each of preceding vehicles that is traveling in front of the own vehicle relative, the positional information on the reflector representing a position of the reflector” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-7, the claims merely expand on the abstract ideas in the independent claims. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-7 are also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1, 8, and 9 require calculating a radar sensor misalignment quantity using maximum likelihood estimation in accordance with a predetermined likelihood model and received positional information items of reflectors. The predetermined likelihood model correlates reflector existence likelihood with reflector positions.
Schwindt (US 2016/0223649) teaches determining radar sensor alignment by comparing predetermined power curves with received power curves ([0004]). However, Schwindt does not teach using maximum likelihood estimation or a likelihood model that correlates reflector existence likelihood with reflector positions.
Using maximum likelihood estimation to determine parameters of a given system is considered ordinary and well-known in the art. However, there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying Schwindt to specifically calculate a misalignment quantity using maximum likelihood estimation and a likelihood model that correlates reflector existence likelihood with reflector positions without the improper use of hindsight.
For example, Kellner (Kellner et al., “Joint Radar Alignment and Odometry Calibration,” 2015) teaches using maximum likelihood estimation to determine sensor alignment. However, Kellner uses a Doppler velocity distribution of stationary targets (Kellner [Introduction]) and does not teach a likelihood model that correlates reflector existence likelihood with reflector positions.
As another example, Xia (Xia et al., “Extended Object Tracking with Automotive Radar Using Learned Structural Measurement Model,” 2020) teaches using maximum likelihood estimation for object tracking and teaches a likelihood model that correlates reflector existence likelihood with reflector positions (Xia [Introduction]: “these radar measurements are spatially distributed as a function of individual measurement likelihoods”). However, Xia does not use the likelihood model to determine a misalignment quantity, and instead computes an aspect angle to determine a likelihood model (Xia [Section IV.B]: “first compute the aspect angle”).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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 J. Kelleher can be reached on (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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648