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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-150255, filed on 09/15/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 20120127016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses
An object recognition device (see pg. 1, paragraph 0009, “It is an object of the present invention to provide a radar device capable of detecting a type of each of front objects present”) comprising: a target sensor configured to transmit a probe wave to a surrounding area and receive a reflected wave produced by reflection of the probe wave from a target (see pg. 1, paragraph 0010, “The transmitting and receiving means emits radar waves and receives echoes of signals of the radar waves which are reflected by various types of objects as detection targets.”; pg. 3, paragraph 0038, “The radar device 1 is a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar device mounted on a motor vehicle. The FMCW radar device transmits radar wave in FMCW format and receives echoes as reflected radar waves”), and, based on the received reflected wave, periodically and repeatedly acquire an observed value of reflection position of the target (see Fig. 3; pg. 4, paragraph 0060, the signal processing unit can calculate the position of the target object using reflected signals; pg. 7, paragraph 0099, “The signal processing unit 30 in the radar device 1 periodically executes the main processing routine”) and an observed value of reflection intensity (see pg. 1, paragraph 0010, “The detection means detects a signal intensity of each arrival echo on the basis of the received signals of the arrival echo received by the transmitting and receiving means.”; pg. 9, paragraph 0128, “The signal processing unit 30 repeatedly executes the above process”);
a tracking unit (see Fig. 1, signal processing unit 30) configured to sequentially estimate a state quantity of the target in the current process cycle based on (i) the observed value of the reflection position obtained by the target sensor (see pg. 13, paragraph 0208, “The radar device according to the exemplary embodiment of the present invention can specify a type of each front object and a position (a distance and an azimuth) of each front object present in front of own vehicle”) and (ii) a state quantity of the target which includes at least the reflection position and is estimated in the previous processing cycle, and track the target (see Fig. 5, steps S140 and S150 followed by return step; pg. 7, paragraph 0099, “This executes a series of signal processing steps (S110 to S150) every modulation cycle Tm in order to estimate the distance R between the own motor vehicle and the front object, the relative speed V between the own motor vehicle and the front object, and the azimuth .theta. of the front object. Further, the signal processing unit 30 detects the type of the front object.”);
a detection probability calculation unit (see Fig. 1, probability distribution table with memory unit 40) configured to calculate a detection probability of the target in the current process cycle based on the observed value of the reflection intensity acquired in the previous processing cycle or on the reflection intensity included in the state quantity of the target, wherein the stronger the reflection intensity, the higher is made the calculated detection probability (see pg. 1, paragraphs 12-13, device can detect probability based on intensity from current and previous signal measurements; Fig. 4, the higher the change amount Y, the greater the probability);
a presence probability calculation unit (see Fig. 1, probability distribution table with memory unit 40) configured to calculate the presence probability of the target with respect to the observed value of the reflection position in the current processing cycle, using the detection probability calculated by the detection probability calculation unit (see pg. 9, paragraph 0132, “the signal processing unit 30 in the radar device 1 detects and estimates the type of the front object on the basis of the comparison result between the probability distribution in the probability distribution table and the change amount Y obtained on the basis of the arrival echoes of the radar waves which are reflected from the front objects. It is possible for the radar device 1 to estimate in advance the probability of presence of front objects on the basis of road environmental information.”; pg. 2, paragraph 0016, “Because the phase of the echo as the reflected radar wave is changed according to the position of the reflecting surface of the object as the detection target, when the reflection surface of the object vibrates or fluctuates, a positional change of the reflection surface of the object is caused by the vibration or fluctuation, and the positional change of the reflection surface affects the phase change of the echo”); and
a recognition unit (see Fig. 1, signal processing unit 30) configured to recognize a target being tracked by the tracking unit as a target representing an object, in response to the presence probability calculated by the presence probability calculation unit being greater than or equal to a predetermined value (see pg. 7, paragraph 0095, “The probability distribution table stored in the memory unit 40 has the probability distribution regarding various types of objects such as objects made of metal, a person, etc. by which the radar waves are reflected. In particular, because the probability distribution table stored in the memory unit 40 contains a probability distribution of a standing person, and a probability distribution of a moving person, it is possible for the signal processing unit 30 in the radar device 1 to distinguish and recognize a standing person from a moving person and an object made of metal, etc”).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe further discloses
The object recognition device according to claim 1, wherein
the state quantity of the target includes the reflection position and the reflection intensity (see pg. 2, paragraph 0016, device can detect position from reflected object signals; pg. 1, paragraph 0010, “The detection means detects a signal intensity of each arrival echo on the basis of the received signals of the arrival echo received by the transmitting and receiving means.”);
the tracking unit is configured to sequentially estimate the state quantity of the target in the current processing cycle based on (i) the observed value of the reflection position and the observed value of the reflection intensity, and (ii) the state quantity of the target estimated in the previous processing cycle (see pg. 13, paragraph 0207, measurements from previous cycles can be compared to measurements from the current cycle; pg. 8, paragraph 0115, previous cycle measurements can used to determine current cycle measurements); and
the detection probability calculation unit is configured to calculate the detection probability based on the observed value of the reflection intensity (see pg. 1, paragraphs 12-13, device can detect probability based on intensity).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses
The object recognition device according to claim 2, wherein
the tracking unit is configured such that if a first difference exceeds a threshold value, the observed value of the reflection position and the observed value of the reflection intensity are not associated with the state quantity of the target estimated in the previous processing cycle, the first difference being a difference between the observed value of the reflection intensity and the reflection intensity included in the state quantity of the target (see Fig. 4; pg. 6, paragraph 0089, “As shown in FIG. 4, the probability distribution table stores a probability distribution of the change amount Y of each object as a detection target, which has been obtained when each object reflects the radar wave transmitted from the radar device 1. Specifically, each probability distribution table stores cumulative distribution probabilities of a type of each object when a currently change amount Y becomes a value of not more than the change amount Y.”).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses
The object recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the detection probability calculation unit is configured to reduce the detection probability when bad environment information is acquired from an environment sensor (see Figs. 7 and 9; pg. 11, paragraphs 0171-0173, the probability density is multiplied by a coefficient W which depends on the detected road environment).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe further discloses
The object recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the object recognition device is mounted to an automobile (see pg. 1, paragraph 0009, “It is an object of the present invention to provide a radar device capable of detecting a type of each of front objects present in an area in front of the radar device, for example, mounted to an own motor vehicle”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 20120127016 A1) in view of Ruchti et al. (US 20220390596 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ruchti discloses
The object recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the presence probability calculation unit is configured to calculate the presence probability by using a random finite set (see pg. 5, paragraph 0045, the probability distributions are fitted by random finite sets).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ruchti into the invention of Watanabe. Both Watanabe and Ruchti are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar sensor devices for object detection mounted on vehicles. Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Watanabe fails to disclose using a random finite set to calculate the presence probability. This feature is disclosed by Ruchti where the probability distributions from the radar data can be fitted with a random finite set. The combination of Watanabe and Ruchti would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a more statistically accurate probability by using random samples, increasing the reliability of the probability.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses [Note: what Watanabe fails to disclose is strike-through]
The object recognition device according to claim 1, (see pg. 7, paragraph 0101, “In the exemplary embodiment, the signal processing unit 30 detects the peak value of the power spectrum in each antenna element and not less than a predetermined threshold value, and detects, as the peak frequency fp, each peak frequency of not less than the predetermined threshold value”).
Ruchti discloses
wherein the detection probability calculation unit is configured to approximate a distribution of the reflection intensity to a Gaussian distribution (see pg. 5, paragraph 0044, a Gaussian function can be used for the probability distributions),
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ruchti into the invention of Watanabe. Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1 and calculating detection probability based on intensity above a threshold value; however, Watanabe fails to disclose using a Gaussian distribution to approximate a distribution of the reflection intensity. This feature is disclosed by Ruchti where a Gaussian function can be applied to the probability distributions from the radar data. The combination of Watanabe and Ruchti would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow “for a systematic displacement of the error space toward a positive deviation” (see Ruchti pg. 5, paragraph 0044) when performing data analysis, presenting an alternative way for the data to be read that can improve and further optimize data analysis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 20120127016 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 12276752 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses
The object recognition device according to claim 1, further comprising an area estimation unit configured to estimate an occurrence area where occlusion occurs,
wherein the detection probability calculation unit is configured to reduce the detection probability in the occurrence area estimated by the area estimation unit (see col. 8, lines 28-58, the sensors can detect a path blockage, and determine spurious radar returns as a result of the blockage).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chen into the invention of Watanabe. Both Watanabe and Chen are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar sensor systems for vehicle applications. Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Watanabe fails to disclose detecting an area where occlusion occurs, and reducing detection probability in that area. This feature is disclosed by Chen where the sensors can detect an occlusion like a blockage, and adjust the detection probability accordingly such as in a case where the blockage causes spurious signals, and the detection system can identify that the signals are spurious. The combination of Watanabe and Chen would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve driving efficiency by ignoring spurious signals and allowing the vehicle to proceed normally (see Chen col. 8, lines 55-58), preventing a buildup of traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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 Kelleher can be reached at (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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648