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 .
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)(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 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ankarskold-Fluck et al. (Ankarskold-Fluck, K. and Wiskman, E. (2019, September 13). Development of a motion platform for the G1X radar. KTH School of Engineering Sciences. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1360711/FULLTEXT01.pdf), hereinafter Ankarskold-Fluck.
Regarding claim 1, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
A sensor testing station (p. 2, para. 2, “This report presents the development and the assembly of a motion platform used for simulating sea- and ground environments in order to verify the performance of the G1X radar.”) comprising: a sensor mount for removably mounting a sensor (fig. 1, platform with radar mounted); and a control device configured to orient the sensor mount about a plurality of axes (fig. 8.14, 8.16, noting laptop is connected to the control system, which then controls the rotation of the two motors), wherein the plurality of axes are constrained to pass through a common point in space corresponding to a middle point of the sensor when mounted to the sensor mount (fig. 5.4, noting that both the pitch and roll axes pass through the center of the portion of the radar that is attached to the mount).
Regarding claim 2, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor testing station of claim 1 wherein the control device is configured to rotate the sensor mount about at least two of: a yaw axis, a roll axis, and a pitch axis (p. I, para. 2, “The platform can be tilted ± 22o in pitch and ± 22o in roll.”).
Regarding claim 3, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor testing station of claim 1 wherein the control device includes separate devices for orienting the sensor mount about a yaw axis, a roll axis, and/or a pitch axis (fig. 8.17, one servomoter controls the pitch platform and the other controls the drive platform).
Regarding claim 4, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor testing station of claim 1 further comprising a translational displacement device (p. 52, “Since the motion platform was assembled on two euro pallets, integration also includes mounting the motion platform on the elevator that operates between the lab and the roof.” The examiner notes that the elevator is being understood to be a translational displacement device, because it moves vertically from the lab to the roof).
Regarding claim 5, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor mounting testing station of claim 4 wherein the translational displacement device is configured for movement in x, y, and/or z directions (p. 52, “Since the motion platform was assembled on two euro pallets, integration also includes mounting the motion platform on the elevator that operates between the lab and the roof.” The examiner notes that the elevator is being understood to be a translational displacement device that is configured for movement in the y-direction).
Regarding claim 6, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor testing station of claim 4 wherein the translational displacement device is located proximate a base of the sensor testing station and configured to provide translational displacement to the control device (p. 52, “Since the motion platform was assembled on two euro pallets, integration also includes mounting the motion platform on the elevator that operates between the lab and the roof.” The examiner notes that the euro pallets are currently mounted to the base of the sensor testing station and are supposed to be a stand-in for the elevator mount of fig. 4.1).
Regarding claim 7, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor mounting testing station of claim 6 wherein the translational displacement device includes a platform, configured for translational movement, for coupling to the control device (p. 52, “Since the motion platform was assembled on two euro pallets, integration also includes mounting the motion platform on the elevator that operates between the lab and the roof.” The examiner notes that an elevator is being understood to be a platform configured for translational movement).
Regarding claim 13, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
The sensor testing station of claim 1 wherein the control device is motorized for incremental angular displacement about the plurality of axes (p. 74 line 1, “Servorotations = (360/ delta ( theta )) *90.” The examiner notes that the control devices are motorized using servomotors with 1:90 gear boxes).
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.
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankarskold-Fluck in view of another embodiment of Ankarskold-Fluck, hereinafter Concept A of Ankarskold-Fluck.
Regarding claim 8, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the sensor testing station of claim 2. That embodiment of Ankarskold-Fluck does not teach,
…wherein: the control device includes a yaw control device configured to rotate a support element about the yaw axis, and the support element is connectable to a roll control device and/or a pitch control device
Concept A of Ankarskold-Fluck teaches,
…wherein: the control device includes a yaw control device configured to rotate a support element about the yaw axis, and the support element is connectable to a roll control device and/or a pitch control device (fig. 4.3. See also p. 12, para. 2)
Both embodiments of Ankarskold-Fluck are analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor testing station of Ankarskold-Fluck with the yaw control device of Concept A of Ankarskold-Fluck. Ankarskold-Fluck notes that yaw rotation would yield valuable information (see p. 4, para. 1 and Table 2.1) to a sensor device tested on their motion platform, and further notes that the primary reason that they did not use Concept A was the cost of purchasing six linear actuators. However, Ankarskold-Fluck notes that the short time period, small budget, and limited number of products being built significantly impacted their ability to optimize motion platform performance, indicating that yaw control should be included.
Regarding claim 9, Ankarskold-Fluck in view of Concept A of Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the sensor testing station of claim 8. Ankarskold-Fluck further teaches,
…wherein: the roll control device is configured to rotate a support element about the roll axis (fig. 8.17, servomotor on the left side of the image is configured to rotate the inner platform about the roll axis), and the support element is connectable to the pitch control device and/or the yaw control device (fig. 8.19, inner platform is connected to the pitch control device via SKF bearing unit).
Regarding claim 10, Ankarskold-Fluck in view of Concept A of Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the sensor testing station of claim 9. Ankarskold-Fluck further teaches,
…wherein: the pitch control device is configured to rotate a support element about the pitch axis (fig. 8.17, servomotor on the right side of the image is configured to rotate the outer platform about the pitch axis), and the support element is (i) connectable to the sensor mount, (ii) integrated with the sensor mount, (iii) connectable to the roll control device, or (iv) connectable to the yaw control device (p. I, para. 2, “The G1X radar is mounted on a gimbal platform which is made out of two aluminium frames, whereas the outer frame rotates around an horizontal axis while the inner frame rotates around a transversely mounted horizontal axis mounted on the outer frame. Each aluminium frame is attached to a link arm which is mounted on a motor that is used to tilt the frame.” The examiner notes that the aluminium frames are the inner and outer platforms).
Claims 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankarskold-Fluck in view of Kolberg et al. (WO 2017/101912 A1), hereinafter Kolberg.
Regarding claim 11, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the sensor testing station of claim 1. Ankarskold-Fluck does not teach,
…further comprising a laser device mount
Kolberg teaches,
…further comprising a laser device mount (fig. 7, mirror 21. The examiner notes that the mirror 21 is being understood to be a laser device mount because it reflects emissions from the laser 14).
Kolberg is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ankarskold-Fluck with the laser device mount of Kolberg because the laser device mount of Kolberg enables accurate alignment between the radar sensor and the object being sensed.
Regarding claim 12, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the sensor testing station of claim 1. Ankarskold-Fluck does not teach,
…wherein the sensor mount is configured to function as a laser device mount such that a laser beam can be emitted normal to a surface of the sensor for pointing at an object to be sensed by the sensor
Kolberg teaches,
…wherein the sensor mount is configured to function as a laser device mount such that a laser beam can be emitted normal to a surface of the sensor for pointing at an object to be sensed by the sensor (fig. 7, mirror 21. The examiner notes that the mirror 21 is being understood to be a laser device mount because it reflects emissions from the laser 14. See also, p. 3, para. 6, “In practice, many radar sensors are provided with a reference mirror surface, in particular for the purpose of calibration. For calibrating such radar sensors with integrated reference mirror surface, the laser beam of the laser mounted on the mounting plate is then aligned during calibration to this reference mirror surface of the radar sensor, so that the reference mirror reflects the laser beam. The reflected laser beam then impinges on a measuring scale connected to the laser so that it can be read on the basis of the measuring scale whether the radar sensor is correctly aligned”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ankarskold-Fluck with the laser device mount of Kolberg because the laser device mount of Kolberg enables accurate alignment between the radar sensor and the object being sensed.
Regarding claim 14, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches (note: what Ankarskold-Fluck does not teach is struck through),
A method for testing a sensor (p. 2, para. 2, “This report presents the development and the assembly of a motion platform used for simulating sea- and ground environments in order to verify the performance of the G1X radar.”), the method comprising: mounting the sensor to a sensor testing station (fig. 8.1, G1X radar is shown mounted to sensor testing station), wherein the sensor testing station includes: a sensor mount for removably mounting the sensor (fig. 1, platform with radar mounted); and a control device configured to orient the sensor mount about a plurality of axes (fig. 8.14, 8.16, noting laptop is connected to the control system, which then controls the rotation of the two motors), and the plurality of axes are constrained to pass through a common point in space corresponding to a middle point of the sensor when mounted to the sensor mount (fig. 5.4, noting that both the pitch and roll axes pass through the center of the portion of the radar that is attached to the mount);
Kolberg teaches,
…facing the sensor in a direction of a target object (fig. 8, radar sensor 25 is facing calibration board); activating the sensor to detect the target object (p. 3, para. 1, “so that a radar sensor radiated on the Winkelverstellplatte detects different distances”); and collecting data corresponding to detection of the target object and using the collected data to analyze performance of the sensor (p. 3, para. 1, “The advantage of the solution according to the invention is that the calibration of the at least one radar sensor either in the workshop in a simple manner”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ankarskold-Fluck with the calibration technique of Kolberg because the calibration technique of Kolberg is the most common technique for radar calibration in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the method of claim 14. Ankarskold-Fluck does not teach,
…wherein the direction of the target object is predetermined determined by (i) mounting a laser device to or proximate the sensor mount, (ii) emitting a laser beam coincident with a middle point of the sensor to be mounted, and (iii) adjusting yaw, roll, and/or pitch orientation of the sensor mount until the laser beam coincides with the target object to be sensed.
Kolberg teaches,
…wherein the direction of the target object is predetermined determined by (i) mounting a laser device to or proximate the sensor mount (fig 7, mirror 21 is mounted on the radar 25), (ii) emitting a laser beam coincident with a middle point of the sensor to be mounted (p. 3, para. 6, “To calibrate such radar sensors with integrated reference mirror surface, the laser beam of the laser mounted on the mounting plate is then aligned during calibration to this reference mirror surface of the radar sensor, so that the reference mirror reflects the laser beam. The reflected laser beam then impinges on a measuring scale connected to the laser, so that it can be read on the basis of the measuring scale whether the radar sensor is correctly aligned”), and (iii) adjusting yaw, roll, and/or pitch orientation of the sensor mount until the laser beam coincides with the target object to be sensed (p. 5, para. 2, “If this is not the case, the radar sensor 25 can be adjusted by means of a corresponding adjusting screw 28 on the radar sensor until the laser beam is reflected such that it impinges in the prescribed range on the measuring scale, thus the radar sensor 25 is correctly adjusted and aligned.” The examiner notes that being correctly adjusted and aligned means that the laser beam is coinciding with the object to be sensed, specifically the calibration board. The examiner further notes that there are a limited number of ways in which a radar sensor can be adjusted, thus suggesting that roll, pitch and/or yaw would be an obvious adjustment to make with the adjusting screw).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ankarskold-Fluck with the laser finding of Kolberg because the laser finding of Kolberg ensures the radar is accurately lined up with the target object.
Regarding claim 16, Ankarskold-Fluck teaches the method of claim 15. Ankarskold-Fluck does not teach,
…further comprising further adjusting an x, y, and/or z linear displacement direction of the sensor mount until the laser beam coincides with the target object to be sensed.
Kolberg teaches,
…further comprising further adjusting an x, y, and/or z linear displacement direction of the sensor mount until the laser beam coincides with the target object to be sensed (fig. 8. See also p. 5, para. 2, “Usually, then, after appropriate positioning of the vehicle 30 in front of the calibration panel 1 and the attachment of the laser 14 to the mounting plate 13 of the Winkelverstellplatte 12 and its orientation to the radar sensor 25 in the event that this is a radar sensor 25 with an integrated reference mirror 21st is such that the laser beam of the laser 14 is aligned with the reference mirror 21, so that the reference mirror 23 reflects the laser beam, so that it is reflected onto the attached to the laser 14 measuring scale, so that it is then read on this scale, whether the radar sensor 25 is correctly positioned and thus the radar beam is aligned in an imaginary extension of the vehicle longitudinal axis, ie straight ahead in the direction of travel. If this is not the case, the radar sensor 25 can be adjusted by means of a corresponding adjusting screw 28 on the radar sensor until the laser beam is reflected such that it impinges in the prescribed range on the measuring scale, thus the radar sensor 25 is correctly adjusted and aligned”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ankarskold-Fluck with the laser finding of Kolberg because the laser finding of Kolberg ensures the radar is accurately lined up with the target object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ko (U.S. Pat. No. 10288458 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648