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 statements (IDS) submitted on 22 November 2025 and 23 December 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after disposition. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 were pending.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida, US20240094342 (“MOCHIDA”) in view of Li et al., CN117058254A (“LI”).
Re claim 1, MOCHIDA discloses a speed radar device comprising:
a gravity sensor unit configured to detect a change in an installation angle of the device and measure a changed angle [0021];
a radar sensor unit including a plurality of transmitting antennas and receiving antennas [0041] to measure a speed of a vehicle in consecutive frames in a first section, a second section, or a third section according to radar profile setting [0041], [0050]; and
a radar setting unit configured to automatically set the radar sensor unit to a first section measurement radar profile, a second section measurement radar profile, or a third section measurement radar profile according to an installation height, an initial installation angle, or a changed installation angle of the device [0040], [0068], [0088-0089]
MOCHIDA fails to explicitly disclose wherein the speed radar device is camera-assisting
However, LI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a speed camera-assisting radar device [Fig.1 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOCHIDA to include the specific camera element of the speed radar device of LI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the traffic scene understanding and classification for further analysis (see at least LI [Fig.1 and associated text]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LI merely teaches that it is well-known to utilize a camera in a speed detecting radar system. Since both MOCHIDA and LI disclose similar speed detecting radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, MOCHIDA/LI renders obvious the speed camera-assisting radar device of claim 1, as shown above. MOCHIDA further discloses:
wherein: the radar setting unit sets the radar sensor unit to a first multi-mode radar profile in which a speed of a vehicle is allowed to be measured in a first section and a second section when the installation angle of the device falls within a first range, and sets the radar sensor unit to a second multi-mode radar profile in which the speed of the vehicle is allowed to be measured in the second section and a third section when the installation angle of the device falls within a second range [0039-0041]
MOCHIDA fails to explicitly disclose and when the radar sensor unit is set to the first or second multi-mode radar profile, the radar sensor unit divides time within one frame to measure the vehicle speed in each section
However, LI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a speed camera-assisting radar device [Fig.1 and associated text] wherein the device divides time within one frame to measure a vehicle speed in each section [Figs.1-2 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOCHIDA to include the specific camera element of the speed radar device of LI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the traffic scene understanding and classification for further analysis (see at least LI [Fig.1 and associated text]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LI merely teaches that it is well-known to utilize a camera in a speed detecting radar system. Since both MOCHIDA and LI disclose similar speed detecting radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 3, MOCHIDA/LI renders obvious the speed camera-assisting radar device of claim 1, as shown above. MOCHIDA further discloses:
wherein: the radar setting unit sets the radar sensor unit to a first multi-mode radar profile in which a speed of a vehicle is allowed to be measured in a first section and a second section when the installation angle of the device falls within a first range, and sets the radar sensor unit to a second multi-mode radar profile in which the speed of the vehicle is allowed to be measured in the second section and a third section when the installation angle of the device falls within a second range [0039-0041]
MOCHIDA fails to explicitly disclose and when the radar sensor unit is set to the first or second multi-mode radar profile, the radar sensor unit measures the vehicle speed in each section while crossing on a frame basis
However, LI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a speed camera-assisting radar device [Fig.1 and associated text] wherein the device measures the vehicle speed in each section while crossing on a frame basis [Figs.1-2 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOCHIDA to include the specific mathematical data manipulation techniques of LI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the traffic scene understanding and classification for further analysis (see at least LI [Fig.1 and associated text]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LI merely teaches that it is well-known to utilize such techniques in a speed detecting radar system. Since both MOCHIDA and LI disclose similar speed detecting radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 5, MOCHIDA/LI renders obvious the speed camera-assisting radar device of claim 1, as shown above.
MOCHIDA fails to explicitly disclose wherein the radar sensor unit clusters point clouds generated for each frame to generate a speed measurement target, then tracks the target in consecutive frames, and calculates a speed from a moving distance of the measurement target between frames
However, LI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a speed camera-assisting radar device [Fig.1 and associated text] wherein the radar device clusters point clouds generated for each frame to generate a speed measurement target, then tracks the target in consecutive frames, and calculates a speed from a moving distance of the measurement target between frames [Figs.1-2 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOCHIDA to include the specific mathematical data manipulation techniques of LI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the traffic scene understanding and classification for further analysis (see at least LI [Fig.1 and associated text]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LI merely teaches that it is well-known to utilize such techniques in a speed detecting radar system. Since both MOCHIDA and LI disclose similar speed detecting radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIDA/LI in view of Khlifi, DE102019202936A1 (“KHLIFI”).
Re claim 4, MOCHIDA/LI renders obvious the speed camera-assisting radar device of claim 2, as shown above.
MOCHIDA/LI fails to explicitly disclose wherein, when the radar sensor unit is set to the first or second multi-mode radar profile, the radar sensor unit measures the vehicle speed in each section by separately assigning the transmitting antennas and receiving antennas for each section
However, KHLIFI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a speed camera-assisting radar device [Fig.1 and associated text] wherein, when the radar sensor unit is set to a first or second multi-mode radar profile, the radar sensor unit measures the vehicle speed in each section by separately assigning the transmitting antennas and receiving antennas for each section [Figs.5 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOCHIDA/LI to include the specific antenna assigning techniques of KHLIFI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide dynamically adaptable antenna channels for measurements to be made (see at least KHLIFI [Fig.5 and associated text]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, KHLIFI merely teaches that it is well-known to utilize such techniques in a speed detecting radar system. Since MOCHIDA, LI, and KHLIFI all disclose similar speed detecting radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
DE102017221034, Lehning et al. – Method And Device For Determining An Installation Angle Between A Road Surface On Which A Vehicle Is Traveling And A Detection Direction Of A Measuring Or Radar Sensor.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855