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
The amendment filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/13/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments. However, additional prior art rejections are presented below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning the teachings of Beez’s lobe 30, the Examiner disagrees. While the instant application has an intended use of unintentionally generated sidelobes, this is merely an intended use of the claimed invention that offers no structural differences from the teachings of Beez which use an elevation oriented additional beam as an additional/secondary/side lobe. However, additional definition given to the specifics of identification of a sidelobe are not explicitly disclosed by Beez, but remedied in the prior art rejection presented below.
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 of this title, 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, 9, 12, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez (US 20050116854 A1), hereinafter Beez, in view of Chen (US 20210041528 A1), hereinafter Chen, in further view of Chang (WO 2022174630 A1), hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 1, Beez, as shown below, discloses a method comprising the following limitations:
(See at least Fig. 1, [0026] “Radar sensor 10 shown in FIG. 1 is installed on the front side of a motor vehicle”), a radar to transmit radar signals into an environment of the vehicle, wherein a radiation pattern of the radar includes a main lobe and an elevation sidelobe (See at least [0028] “Each of patches 20 thus generates a lobe 28 in the form of an approximately parallel bundle of rays which is directed parallel to roadway surface 12. In contrast, patch 22 generates a lobe 30, again in the form of an approximately parallel bundle of rays, which is directed obliquely to roadway surface 12”);
estimating a relative measurement corresponding to the elevation sidelobe, wherein the relative measurement corresponding to the elevation sidelobe represents an elevation measurement corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0039] “in FIG. 5, distance d is relatively sensitive to a misalignment of radar sensor 10 with respect to the inclination to the vertical. […] Normal distance d, corresponding to a correct alignment of the radar sensor, is known for a given vehicle, since this distance is uniquely specified by height h and the angle between lobes 28 and 30”);
determining a pitch error based on a comparison between the relative measurement corresponding to the sidelobe and a reference elevation sidelobe measurement (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving […] If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor” Beez discloses a misalignment as a pitch error determined from a comparison between the normal sidelobe measurement and the average measurement); and
based on the pitch error, performing a calibration process for subsequent operation of the radar (See at least [0039] “If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor 10, so that either an automatic realignment is performed”).
Beez does not explicitly disclose causing, by a computing system ; receiving, at the computing system, radar data corresponding to the transmitted radar signals. However, Chen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
causing, by a computing system (See at least Fig. 1, [0070] “computer system 112 may include at least one processor 113 (which could include at least one microprocessor) operable to execute instructions 115 stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium”)
receiving, at the computing system, radar data corresponding to the transmitted radar signals (See at least Fig. 1, Items 104, 126, [0074] “Computer system 112 may control the function of vehicle 100 based on inputs received from various subsystems (e.g., propulsion system 102, sensor system 104”);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable safe navigation (See at least [0051] “through receiving control instructions from a computing system (e.g., a vehicle control system). […] vehicle 100 may use sensors (e.g., sensor system 104) to detect and possibly identify objects of the surrounding environment in order to enable safe navigation”).
The combination of Beez and Chen does not explicitly disclose identifying the elevation sidelobe represented in the radar data based on a signal strength of the elevation sidelobe being below a signal strength of the main lobe and above a noise floor. However, Chang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
identifying the elevation sidelobe represented in the radar data based on a signal strength of the elevation sidelobe being below a signal strength of the main lobe and above a noise floor (See at least Fig. 7A, “the range-dimensional main lobe has a significantly higher amplitude, the range-dimensional side lobe has a medium amplitude, and the system noise floor has the lowest amplitude.”);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection accuracy (See at least “When applied to detection devices such as radar, more accurate environmental information can be obtained, and the detection accuracy of the detection device can be improved”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Beez does not disclose causing the radar to transmit radar signals into the environment comprises: causing the radar to transmit radar signals through a pitched radome, wherein the pitched radome is configured to reflect energy corresponding to the sidelobe. However, Chen further discloses
causing the radar to transmit radar signals into the environment comprises: causing the radar to transmit radar signals through a pitched radome, wherein the pitched radome is configured to reflect energy corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0030] “A slanted radome may be oriented at an angle relative to a radar unit to reflect radar signals in a particular direction”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the radome system disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously protect the radar unit (See at least [0029] “a slanted radome may be located in a direction of transmission of a radar unit's radiation pattern and serve to protect the radar unit”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
performing a given comparison between the pitch error and a threshold pitch error (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving […] If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor”); and
performing the calibration process based on the given comparison between the pitch error and the threshold pitch error (See at least [0039] “If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor 10, so that either an automatic realignment is performed”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Beez further discloses
determining the pitch error is greater than the threshold pitch error (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving […] If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor”); and
based on determining the pitch error is greater than the threshold pitch error, providing an alert that prompts for recalibration of a mount that couples the radar to the vehicle (See at least [0039] “If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor 10, so that either an automatic realignment is performed or a warning message is sent to the driver”)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
performing the calibration process for subsequent operation of the radar comprises: providing an alert that prompts for adjusting a pitch of the radar (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving, since roadway surface 12 will not always be flat, but rather may have bumps and depressions, and because height h and the inclination of the sensor also fluctuate due to springlike motions of the vehicle body. […] If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor 10, so that […] a warning message is sent to the driver”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
monitoring relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe across subsequent radar data obtained during navigation (See at least [0039] “when continuously measuring distance d”); and
estimating a speed of the vehicle based on monitoring the relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0036] “Speed v of radar sensor 10 relative to roadway surface 12 in the direction parallel to the axis of lobe 30 may be measured” See also [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
performing a comparison between the elevation measurement corresponding to the elevation sidelobe and the reference sidelobe measurement, wherein the reference sidelobe measurement corresponds to an absolute elevation measurement corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0039] “when continuously measuring distance d, the average value of the measured distances must correspond to the normal value given correct alignment of the sensor. If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term” Beez discloses a comparison corresponding to the elevation measurement’s change in heights).
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Beez further discloses
the reference sidelobe measurement is generated after the radar is installed on the vehicle (See at least [0039] “Normal distance d, corresponding to a correct alignment of the radar sensor, is known for a given vehicle, since this distance is uniquely specified by height h and the angle between lobes 28 and 30” Beez discloses establishing a normal value based on detected values.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Beez further discloses
the relative measurement corresponding to the elevation sidelobe is based on a plurality of estimations (See at least [0039] “If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term” Beez discloses the relative measurements (estimations) compiled together to form an average.).
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
the elevation sidelobe is directed toward a ground surface supporting the vehicle (See at least Fig. 1, [0026] “installed on the front side of a motor vehicle, not shown, at a specified distance above roadway surface 12”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view of Chang, in further view of Jiang (US 20250130313 A1), hereinafter Jiang (‘313).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Beez further discloses
determining the pitch error is less than the threshold pitch error (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving, since roadway surface 12 will not always be flat, but rather may have bumps and depressions, and because height h and the inclination of the sensor also fluctuate due to springlike motions of the vehicle body.”); and
The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang does not explicitly disclose based on determining the pitch error is less than the threshold pitch error, performing a software-based calibration process. However, Jiang (‘313), in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
based on determining the pitch error is less than the threshold pitch error (See at least [0055] “+θ denotes the maximum calibration angle in the present application, and −θ denotes the minimum calibration angle”, [0059] “If the installation error of the traffic radar is within the range of ±θ,”), performing a software-based calibration process (See at least [0006] “a software algorithm is used to calculate the installation deviation angle of the traffic radar, and the solution in which the deviation angle is used as a software compensation parameter for an angle detection result of the traffic radar.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the calibration system disclosed by Jiang (‘313). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable a system capable of long detection distance, high speed measurement accuracy and less affected by weather conditions (See at least [0003] “due to characteristics such as the long detection distance, the high speed measurement accuracy, and less affected by weather conditions”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view of Chang, in further view of Campbell (US 10866305 B1), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses:
generating the reference sidelobe measurement in a lab setting, wherein the lab setting positions a given radar matching the radar at a height above a ground surface based on a height of the radar when coupled to the vehicle (See at least [0039] “Normal distance d, corresponding to a correct alignment of the radar sensor, is known for a given vehicle, since this distance is uniquely specified by height h and the angle between lobes 28 and 30”); and.
The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang does not explicitly disclose transmitting the reference sidelobe measurement to a plurality of vehicles having radars that match the radar. However, Campbell, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
transmitting the (See at least Col. 33 Lines 7-11 “method 900 may further involve transmitting the filter to one or more systems of other vehicles. For instance, the filter may be provided to another vehicle that includes a radar unit having the same structure, orientation, and position as the radar unit used” Campbell discloses transmitting a filter which has analogous features to the reference sidelobe disclosed by Beez).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the transmitting system disclosed by Campbell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase safety of vehicles (See at least Col. 23 Lines 1-3 “In further examples, vehicle 712 may use near-field radar to maintain a buffer around vehicle 712 to increase safety and obstacle avoidance during operation.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view of Chang, in further view of Talai (US 20230056655 A1), hereinafter Talai.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Beez and Chen does not explicitly disclose obtaining the reference sidelobe measurement from a remote computing system. However, Talai, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
obtaining the reference sidelobe measurement (See at least [0036] “the output manager 218 may provide the calibration error to a controller configured to provide machine-executable instructions to correct the calibration error for the radar sensor within the radar system”) from a remote computing system (See at least [0030] “The calibration unit 126 may be a remote computer”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the reference obtaining system disclosed by Talai. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately adjust a radar and thereby improve calibration (See at least [0041] “the radar sensor 104 may be adjusted more accurately, and the radar system may have improved calibration”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view of Chang, in further view of Fedor (US 20240176010 A1), hereinafter Fedor.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang does not explicitly disclose performing the calibration process for subsequent operation of the radar comprises: applying an update to one or more radar models used for operating the radar. However, Fedor, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
performing the calibration process for subsequent operation of the radar comprises: applying an update to one or more radar models used for operating the radar (See at least [0044] “The model updater 528 receives the radar data from the radar transceivers 514 and uses the radar data to calibrate, update, adjust, check an accuracy of, etc., the image model”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the model system disclosed by Fedor. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0055] “Process 600 includes obtaining the radar from the radar transmitter and receiver of the surrounding area of the vehicle (step 608) and updating or calibrating the model or the image data using the radar data to improve accuracy”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view of Chang, in further view of Jiang (CN 115396835 A), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang does not explicitly disclose performing the calibration process for subsequent operation of the radar comprises: providing an alert that prompts for a replacement of the radar. However, Jiang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
performing the calibration process for subsequent operation of the radar comprises: providing an alert that prompts for a replacement of the radar (See at least “When the sensing parameter indicates that the sensor 30 needs to be adjusted, correction, maintenance or replacement, internet of things platform 80 can notify the staff to perform the above adjustment, correction, maintenance or replacement, to ensure the train running and passenger safety.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the replacement system disclosed by Jiang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure passenger safety (See at least “When the sensing parameter indicates that the sensor 30 needs to be adjusted, correction, maintenance or replacement, internet of things platform 80 can notify the staff to perform the above adjustment, correction, maintenance or replacement, to ensure the train running and passenger safety.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view of Chang, in further view Jonasson (US 20250153719 A1), hereinafter Jonasson.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
monitoring relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe across subsequent radar data obtained during navigation (See at least [0039] “when continuously measuring distance d”);
detecting a change in the relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving […] If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor”); and
The combination of Beez, Chen, Chang does not explicitly disclose identifying a road grade change of a road traveled by the vehicle during navigation based on detecting the change in the relative measurements corresponding to the sidelobe. However, Jonasson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
identifying a road grade change of a road traveled by the vehicle during navigation based on detecting the change in the relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0060] “identifying an orientation change rate of the ground surface with respect to a driven distance, i.e., how fast the road slope is changing, based on joint processing of the radar data” The Examiner notes that Jonasson does not explicitly disclose sidelobes, but discloses a radar beam that is analogous to the sidelobe disclosed by Beez).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the road change system disclosed by Jonasson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve vehicle control (See at least [0060] “This provides even more information about the characteristics of the ground surface, which information can be used to improve vehicle control.”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez, in view of Chen, in further view Chang, in further view of Fina (US 20220349996 A1), hereinafter Fina.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Beez further discloses
monitoring relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe across subsequent radar data obtained during navigation (See at least [0039] “when continuously measuring distance d”);
detecting a change in the relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0039] “Measured distance d will fluctuate somewhat about the normal value while driving […] If the average value is found to deviate from the normal value over the long term, this may be recognized as a misalignment of radar sensor”); and
The combination of Beez, Chen, and Chang does not explicitly disclose detecting precipitation on a road traveled by the vehicle during navigation based on detecting the change in the relative measurements corresponding to the sidelobe. However, Fina, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
detecting precipitation on a road (See at least Fig. 6, [0105] “one of radar unit 528A or radar unit 528B may detect road spray, which may indicate that only a portion of the road has precipitation accumulated on it”) traveled by the vehicle during navigation based on detecting the change in the relative measurements corresponding to the elevation sidelobe (See at least [0040] “the difference is greater due to the radar image having more energy, this may indicate that more precipitation is located on the roads” While Fina does not explicitly disclose the use of sidelobe measurements, the radar depicted is analogous to the sidelobe disclosed by Beez).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Beez with the computing system disclosed by Chen with the sidelobe system disclosed by Chang with the precipitation system disclosed by Fina. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify adverse conditions and improve navigation (See at least [0105] “the computing device may cause vehicle 522 to modify its position within the lane to move away from the precipitation and/or adjust lanes to navigate in a different lane with road conditions more suitable for navigation”).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights