DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1-9 are pending this application.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 is/are drawn to device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-9 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Representative Claim 1: An in-vehicle radar device capable of measuring a first angle azimuth of a target, a distance to the target, and a relative speed by a plurality of reception antennas, the radar device comprising a processor configured to:
extract, based on a function fitting, a feature including a lateral wall parallel to a traveling direction of a vehicle from information of the distance and the relative speed;
calculate a second angle azimuth for each point in a point group of the feature;
display, based on an input of the point group having the first angle azimuth and the second angle azimuth, the point group on a two-dimensional plane, wherein an x-axis is the first angle azimuth Q and a y-axis is the second angle azimuth b;
and calculate an angle deviation of a mounting axis of the radar device based on a y- intercept of an approximate straight line obtained from a linear approximation of the point group, wherein the y-intercept represents the angle deviation of the mounting axis.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: estimating parameters, function fitting, extracting, and calculating azimuth (i.e., mathematical relationships), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the steps of extracting calculating, measuring, and approximating (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-8 further narrow the abstract idea by angular deviations, calculating results, and function fitting (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 9 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “vehicle,” “radar,” and “processor,” etc. (Claims 1 and 9) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “vehicle,” “radar,” and “processor,” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9, and dependent claims 2-8 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., processing, extracting, calculating, fitting and measuring, etc. steps performed by a predictive model, machine learning algorithms, a communication interface, a memory, a processor, a computational device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the recited additional element(s) of an in-vehicle radar device capable of measuring a first angle azimuth of a target, a distance to the target, and a relative speed by a plurality of reception antennas, the radar device comprising a processor configured to:
extract, based on a function fitting, a feature including a lateral wall parallel to a traveling direction of a vehicle from information of the distance and the relative speed;
calculate a second angle azimuth for each point in a point group of the feature;
display, based on an input of the point group having the first angle azimuth and the second angle azimuth, the point group on a two-dimensional plane, wherein an x-axis is the first angle azimuth Q and a y-axis is the second angle azimuth b;
and calculate an angle deviation of a mounting axis of the radar device based on a y- intercept of an approximate straight line obtained from a linear approximation of the point group, wherein the y-intercept represents the angle deviation of the mounting axis (Claim(s) 1 and 9), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 2-8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole-amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1 and 9, and dependent claims 2-8 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of smoothing process (Claim(s) 1 and 9), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. correcting angle deviation (i.e. obtaining data) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at [page 2, last paragraph] acknowledges that “a technique for correcting a mounting angle of a millimeter wave radar of a vehicle is known,” (i.e. conventional nature of determining vehicle heading). This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-9 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US 2018/0120416 A1) in view of Schiffmann et al (US 2018/0024228 A1) Ameen et al (US 5977906 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitamura teaches an in-vehicle radar device capable of measuring a first angle azimuth of a target, a distance to the target, and a relative speed by a plurality of reception antennas, the radar device comprising a processor configured to [0008-0009 for onboard radar with antennas 0018-0019 for calculating speed, 0022-0024, figure 1]:
extract, based on a function fitting a feature including a lateral wall parallel to a traveling direction of a vehicle from information of the distance and the relative speed by function fitting [0008-0009 for estimating orientation distance using a straight line, to determine angle error, 0038-0039 for straight line and least (minimum sum) of squares];
display, based on an input of the point group having the first angle azimuth and the second angle azimuth, the point group on a two-dimensional plane [0037 for having a graph (display) of the two-dimensional observation data composed of the relative speed between the own vehicle and the object with figures 5 and 6]
calculate an angle deviation of a mounting axis of the radar device based on a y-intercept of an approximate straight line obtained from a linear approximation of the point group [0048 for Vself is an own vehicle speed. N_FFT_BIN/2 is set such that the relative speed].
Kitamura fails to explicitly teach calculate a second angle azimuth for each point in a point group of the feature and wherein an x-axis is the first angle azimuth (q) and a y-axis is the second angle azimuth (b).
Schiffmann has a radar system with auto-alignment suitable for use in an automated vehicle is provided (abstract) and teaches calculate a second angle azimuth for each point in a point group of the feature [0043-0044, equations 4-5 for stationary targets/objects is necessary, hence the actual-longitudinal-speed of the radar-sensor]
and wherein an x-axis is the first angle azimuth (q) and a y-axis is the second angle azimuth (b) [0048-0052 for batch least squares problem can be formed by stacking a number].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the azimuth calculations as taught by Schiffmann for the purpose to determine the side-slip-angle (Schiffmann, 0047).
Kitamura fails to explicitly teach, wherein the y-intercept represents the angle deviation of the mounting axis.
Ameen has a method for calibrating azimuth boresight in a radar system (abstract) and teaches wherein the y-intercept represents the angle deviation of the mounting axis [col 5, lines 30-50 for corrected by detecting and accurately measuring a boresight offset angle C, which is defined as an angle between the antenna boresight and the direction of travel or heading of the host vehicle].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the linear calculations as taught by Ameen for the purpose of reducing the errors introduced by boresight misalignment. (Ameen, col 5, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitamura discloses wherein the processor is further configured to correct the angle deviation of the mounting axis from a calculation result of the angle deviation [0012-0013 and 0042].
Regarding Claim 4, Kitamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to calculate a host vehicle speed from information of the distance to the feature and the relative speed at the time of the function fitting.
Schiffmann has a radar system with auto-alignment suitable for use in an automated vehicle is provided (abstract) and teaches the processor is configured to calculate a host vehicle speed from information of the distance to the feature and the relative speed at the time of the function fitting [0024 for controller is configured to jointly or simultaneously determine a speed-scaling-error].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the azimuth calculations as taught by Schiffmann for the purpose to correct for dynamic conditions of the host-vehicle (Schiffmann, 0024).
Regarding Claim 5, Kitamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to correct an error of a speed sensor from a result of the host vehicle speed.
Schiffmann has a radar system with auto-alignment suitable for use in an automated vehicle is provided (abstract) and teaches wherein the processor is configured to correct an error of a speed sensor from a result of the host vehicle speed [0024 for controller is configured to jointly or simultaneously determine a speed-scaling-error and 0041-0046].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the azimuth calculations as taught by Schiffmann for the purpose to correct for dynamic conditions of the host-vehicle (Schiffmann, 0024).
Regarding Claim 6, Kitamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to perform the function fitting in a predetermined speed range of a speed detection output from the speed sensor.
Schiffmann has a radar system with auto-alignment suitable for use in an automated vehicle is provided (abstract) and teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform the function fitting in a predetermined speed range of a speed detection output from the speed sensor [0060 for stationary targets to be correctly classified as stationary, or that the stationary/ moving threshold is increased with increasing vehicle speed in a way that accounts for the maximum anticipated level of speed-scaling-error].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the azimuth calculations as taught by Schiffmann for the purpose to correct for dynamic conditions of the host-vehicle (Schiffmann, 0024).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to perform the function fitting in a predetermined steering angle range of a steering angle detection output from a steering angle sensor.
Ameen has a method for calibrating azimuth boresight in a radar system (abstract) and teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform the function fitting in a predetermined steering angle range of a steering angle detection output from a steering angle sensor [col 24, lines 55-67 for comparison of the TALA and QAH estimates is continued until there is an agreement between the estimates].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the linear calculations as taught by Ameen for the purpose of generate new correction values (Ameen, col 24, lines 55-67).
Regarding Claim 8, Kitamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to perform the function fitting when the steering angle detection output is in the predetermined steering angle range and a speed detection output from the speed sensor is in a predetermined speed range.
Ameen has a method for calibrating azimuth boresight in a radar system (abstract) and teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform the function fitting when the steering angle detection output is in the predetermined steering angle range and a speed detection output from the speed sensor is in a predetermined speed range [col 28, lines 1-10 for have a turn rate below a pre-determined threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the linear calculations as taught by Ameen for the purpose of generate new correction values (Ameen, col 24, lines 55-67).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitamura teaches a radar device mounted on a vehicle, wherein the radar device is configured to [0008-0009 for onboard radar with antennas 0018-0019 for calculating speed, 0022-0024, figure 1]:
extract a lateral wall parallel to a traveling direction of the vehicle through function fitting from a distance and a relative speed of the vehicle that are a result of performing positioning the radar device [0008-0009 for estimating orientation distance using a straight line, to determine angle error, 0038-0039 for straight line and least (minimum sum) of squares];
calculate an angle azimuth b of each point of the point group extracted as the lateral wall based on a host vehicle speed of the vehicle calculated at the time of the function fitting and a distance to the lateral wall [0008-0009 for calculating an approximated straight line (relationship between speed and orientation for raw (first) data) and 0041 for a reflection point that is further towards the advancing direction with speed of zero (second calculation) used to calculate orientation angle (azimuth) in degrees],
display the point group on a two-dimensional plane [0037 for having a graph (display) of the two-dimensional observation data composed of the relative speed between the own vehicle and the object with figure 5 and 6],
calculate an angle deviation of a mounting axis of the radar device based on a y-intercept of an approximate straight line obtained from a linear approximation of the point group [0048 for Vself is an own vehicle speed. N_FFT_BIN/2 is set such that the relative speed].
Kitamura fails to explicitly teach wherein an x-axis is the angle azimuth Q and a y-axis is the angle azimuth b.
Schiffmann has a radar system with auto-alignment suitable for use in an automated vehicle is provided (abstract) and teaches wherein an x-axis is the angle azimuth Q and a y-axis is the angle azimuth b [0048-0052 for batch least squares problem can be formed by stacking a number].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the azimuth calculations as taught by Schiffmann for the purpose to determine the side-slip-angle (Schiffmann, 0047).
Kitamura fails to explicitly teach, wherein the y-intercept represents the angle deviation of the mounting axis.
Ameen has a method for calibrating azimuth boresight in a radar system (abstract) and teaches wherein the y-intercept represents the angle deviation of the mounting axis [col 5, lines 30-50 for corrected by detecting and accurately measuring a boresight offset angle C, which is defined as an angle between the antenna boresight and the direction of travel or heading of the host vehicle].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the linear calculations as taught by Ameen for the purpose of reducing the errors introduced by boresight misalignment. (Ameen, col 5, lines 40-50).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US 2018/0120416 A1) in view of Schiffmann et al (US 2018/0024228 A1) Ameen et al (US 5977906 A) and further in view of Kanemaru (US 2017/0343650 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kitamura fails to explicitly teach a wherein the processor is configured to issue an alarm in a case where the angle deviation exceeds a predetermined angle deviation from a calculation result of the angle deviation is provided.
Kanemaru has a radar apparatus mounted on a moving body includes a signal transceiver (abstract) and teaches a wherein the processor is configured to issue an alarm in a case where the angle deviation exceeds a predetermined angle deviation from a calculation result of the angle deviation is provided [0078 for warning (alarm) driver].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the mount angle techniques, as disclosed by Kitamura, further including the linear calculations as taught by Kanemaru for the purpose to have the transceiver stop the scanning using the radar signal (Kanemaru, 0078).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In applicant’s arguments page 7, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kitamura does not teach wherein an x-axis is the first angle azimuth (q) and a y-axis is the second angle azimuth (b). The examiner appreciates the applicant’s amendments. Kitamura figures 5 and 6, plot the same pairing recited in the claims (measured azimuth derived quantity on one axis against a geometrically calculated azimuth derived quantity on the other axis) [Kitamura, Figures 5-6].
In applicant’s arguments page 7, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kitamura does not teach the claimed radar device based on a 2D plane. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kitamura’s y-axis frequency bin is not an independent physical measurement but is defined as a proxy for an azimuth angle relative to the host vehicle heading making the argument one of labeling rather than substance [Kitamura, 0038-0039 and equation (1)].
In applicant’s arguments page 8, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kitamura does not teach the amendment based on the y-intercept of an approximate straight line. The examiner respectfully disagrees. New reference Ameen teaches how to calibrate or compensate for the boresight offset angle for the antenna to vehicle heading [Ameen, [0024 for controller is configured to jointly or simultaneously determine a speed-scaling-error].
In applicant’s arguments page 9, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kitamura and Kenemaru cannot be combined. The examiner respectfully disagrees. New reference Schiffmann and Ameen are now combined with Kitamura.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights