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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 01/03/2024.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024 and 06/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes a transitory medium, and thereby is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter. However, to promote compact prosecution, for subject matter eligibility purposes the examiner will treat the claim as if it were directed to statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the first sensing information" and “the second sensing information”. However, these terms are not previously introduced so it is unclear to the Examiner whether particular ‘first sensing information’ or ‘second sensing information’ is being referenced. Further, these terms are introduced in claim 3, which suggests that claim 4 may be intended to depend on claim 3 rather than claim 2. For the purposes of this examination, the examiner will interpret “the first sensing information” as “a first sensing information” and “the second sensing information” as “a second sensing information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amir (US 20230042452 A1), hereinafter Amir.
Regarding claim 1, Amir discloses an apparatus comprising:
a coupler that performs coupling of (See at least [0077] “The data can then be processed using a clustering algorithm to group the measurements”), based on a time-series change in sensing information produced by a radar apparatus, a plurality of pieces of the sensing information as the sensing information on a sensing target (See at least [0062] “For each reflected wave measurement, for a specific time in a series of time-spaced reflective wave measurements, the reflective wave measurement may include a set of one or more measurement points that make up a “point cloud”.”), the plurality of pieces of sensing information being sensed at a given clock time (See at least [0074] “[0074] The classification may be performed by the CPU 202 by looking at a set of sequential frames over a period of time”, [0104] “start monitoring a real time clock that always runs and use the real time clock to monitor the time window”), the sensing target being a specific sensing target (See at least [0077] “The data can then be processed using a clustering algorithm to group the measurements into one or more measurement clusters corresponding to a respective one or more targets”);
a discriminator that discriminates an attribute of the sensing target based on the sensing information on the sensing target, the sensing information on the sensing target having been obtained by the coupling (See at least [0078] “From the reflected wave measurements an RCS of an object represented by a cluster of measurement points can be estimated […]. This RCS estimate may be used to classify the target”); and
an outputter that outputs a discrimination result of the attribute (See at least [0071] “the CPU 202 may take the output of the active reflected wave detector 206 and do a classification, wherein one of the outputs of the classification is that there is no person”)
Regarding claim 8, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 9, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir, in view of Wang (US 20200371228 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 2, Amir, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Amir does not explicitly disclose wherein the discriminator discriminates the attribute of the sensing target based on likelihood information for each attribute candidate at a plurality of clock times, the likelihood information resulting from classifying the attribute of the sensing target based on the sensing information on the sensing target, the sensing information on the sensing target having been obtained by the coupling. However, Wang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the discriminator discriminates the attribute of the sensing target based on likelihood information for each attribute candidate (See at least [0029] “a point cluster may include a plurality of points that have some likelihood, e.g., a level and/or degree of similarity, to identify a single object or grouping of objects that should be considered together, […] information in addition to position information may be used to determine the point cluster. For instance, the signal strength,” Wang discloses an attribute of a target such as a signal strength which has an associated likelihood based on a similarity to surrounding objects.) at a plurality of clock times (See at least [0013] “The historical information may be used to extrapolate or estimate radar data captured at different times to a common time.”), the likelihood information resulting from classifying the attribute of the sensing target based on the sensing information on the sensing target (See at least [0029] “a point cluster may include a plurality of points that have some likelihood, e.g., a level and/or degree of similarity, to identify a single object or grouping of objects that should be considered together, […] information in addition to position information may be used to determine the point cluster. For instance, the signal strength,” Wang discloses an attribute of a target such as a signal strength which has an associated likelihood based on a similarity to surrounding objects.), the sensing information on the sensing target having been obtained by the coupling (See at least [0013] “The historical information may be used to extrapolate or estimate radar data captured at different times to a common time.”)
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 apparatus disclosed by Amir with the discrimination system disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0016] “In addition to improving the accuracy with which sensor data can be used to determine objects and correctly characterize motion of those objects, techniques described herein can provide a smoother ride and improve safety outcomes by, for example, more accurately providing safe passage to an intended destination.”).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Amir and Wang, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Amir does not explicitly disclose the discriminator determines a first attribute as the attribute of the sensing target, the first attribute being an attribute in which the likelihood information has exceeded a threshold continuously over a plurality of times at the plurality of clock times. However, Wang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the discriminator determines a first attribute as the attribute of the sensing target, the first attribute being an attribute in which the likelihood information has exceeded a threshold continuously over a plurality of times at the plurality of clock times (See at least [0031] “The data association component 134 can also add new returns to a cluster returns when a value, e.g., a signal strength, falls between a minimum signal strength and a maximum signal strength of points already associated with an object.” Wang discloses a signal strength attribute within a threshold range occurring on timestamped data. Wang further discloses clustering by timestamp. Additionally, as claimed, “continuously over a plurality of times” has a broadest reasonable interpretation including any two timestamped points as described by Wang.)
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 apparatus disclosed by Amir with the discrimination system disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0016] “In addition to improving the accuracy with which sensor data can be used to determine objects and correctly characterize motion of those objects, techniques described herein can provide a smoother ride and improve safety outcomes by, for example, more accurately providing safe passage to an intended destination.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir, in view of Samangooei (US 20240302517 A1), hereinafter Samangooei.
Regarding claim 3, Amir, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Amir does not explicitly disclose in a case where the coupler determines that a locus indicated by a change in first sensing information and a locus indicated by a change in second sensing information overlap in a frame including the first sensing information and the second sensing information, the coupler couples the first sensing information and the second sensing information, the frame being obtained by overlapping a frame corresponding to a first clock time and including the first sensing information and a frame corresponding to a second clock time and including the second sensing information. However, Samangooei, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
in a case where the coupler determines that a locus indicated by a change in first sensing information and a locus indicated by a change in second sensing information overlap in a frame including the first sensing information and the second sensing information, the coupler couples the first sensing information and the second sensing information, the frame being obtained by overlapping a frame corresponding to a first clock time and including the first sensing information and a frame corresponding to a second clock time and including the second sensing information (See at least Fig. 6A, [0065] “radar points are accumulated, points from different objects can coincide in space in the event that two moving objects occupy the same space but at different times. Clustering across the time dimension t.sub.k helps to ensure that points that coincide in space but not in time are assigned to different moving object clusters and, therefore, treated as belonging to separate objects in the motion modelling.”).
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 apparatus disclosed by Amir with the point accumulation system disclosed by Samangooei. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously compensate for negative smearing effects caused by object motion (See at least [0052] “Techniques are described herein that can be applied in this context in order to compensate for smearing effects caused by object motion over the accumulation window.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir, in view of Wang, in further view of Samangooei.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Amir and Wang, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. The combination of Amir and Wang does not explicitly disclose the coupler determines, based on a distance between the first sensing information and the second sensing information and past sensing information, whether the loci overlap, the past sensing information being at a predetermined distance from each of the first sensing information and the second sensing information. However, Samangooei, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the coupler determines, based on a distance between the first sensing information and the second sensing information and past sensing information, whether the loci overlap, the past sensing information being at a predetermined distance from each of the first sensing information and the second sensing information (See at least [0105] “Clustering across time t prevents radar points that overlap in space (i.e., in their x and y dimensions) but not in time from being assigned to the same cluster.” Samangooei discloses an overlap condition that occurs when first and second sensing information have equal x and y dimensions, which is a predetermined ‘zero’ distance.).
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 apparatus disclosed by Amir with the discrimination system disclosed by Wang with the point accumulation system disclosed by Samangooei. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously compensate for negative smearing effects caused by object motion (See at least [0052] “Techniques are described herein that can be applied in this context in order to compensate for smearing effects caused by object motion over the accumulation window.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 6 and 7 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 6 and 7. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 6, in a case where the attribute of the sensing target is not discriminated after, among the plurality of clock times, a clock time at which the first attribute is determined, the discriminator does not change the first attribute having been determined, and in claim 7, in a case where a piece of the likelihood information does not exceed the threshold, the discriminator discriminates the attribute of the sensing target based on a time-spatial feature (TSF) obtained from feature values of the sensing information at the plurality of clock times, the piece of the likelihood information being highest in the likelihood information for each attribute candidate.
Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 are deemed to have allowable subject matter.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lavian (US 20220043108 A1) - An object detection system in a surrounding environment of a vehicle. The detection system comprising, a radar, and a processing unit. The radar comprising a transmitter, a receiver, and an ultra-low phase-noise frequency synthesizer. The detection system gathers electromagnetic data of the objects from radio signal received by the receiver; classify each of the objects by analyzing the gathered electromagnetic data; continuously compare classifications and object detections to immediate past classifications and object detections, and to previously classified and detected objects; continuously validate current, immediate past, and past object detections; generate a three-dimensional electromagnetic-map of the surrounding environment by utilizing the electromagnetic signatures of each of the classified objects; and reclassify objects and combine the generated three-dimensional electromagnetic map with one of a geographical-map, a physical map, or a combination thereof to determine a direction and a distance of each of the one or more classified objects from the system.
Sarely (US 20210052176 A1) - Using transmitters and receivers for detecting occupants in a vehicle, and classifying those occupants according to the geometry of the vehicle, where sets of complex values associated with voxels in a predetermined region of the vehicle are converted into 3D complex images, where clusters of voxels in the 3D complex images are analyzed to determine presence of occupants, and where positions of seats may determine which seats in the vehicle are occupied.
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