DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 17, 2026 has been entered.
No Claims are amended.
Claims 11-13 are new.
Claims 1-13 are pending this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray et al (US 2005/0096807 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murray teaches a method of verifying calibration of automotive radar alignment, the method comprising [0029 for adjusting sensor orientation and 0031 for image sensor module oriented to a field of view encompasses two wheels]:
replacing a radar sensor of a vehicle with a verification device having a same physical orientation with respect to the vehicle as the radar sensor [0028-0029 for sensor alignment with host vehicle, 0032 for having orientation adjustment, with 0071];
providing, via reflection by the verification device, a first laser beam and a second laser beam spaced apart from the first laser beam; irradiating a target with the first laser beam and the second laser beam [0029 with second element on second mirror also 0076, 0079];
determining a first target position that the first laser beam is incident on the target [0029 for two optical sensor adjustment element, with 0035 for using positions and orientations of target to align the coordinates system];
determining a second target position that the second laser beam is incident on the target [0033 for view aligner’s targets, 0082 for determining target position];
determining an orientation of the radar sensor by: comparing the first target position with a first reference position associated with the incidence of a first reference laser beam from the verification device at a reference orientation [0035, with 0082-0085],
and comparing the second target position with a second reference position associated with the incidence of a second reference laser beam from the verification device at the reference orientation [0033, 0082-0083 for normal image processing to determine the positions and orientation of the auxiliary camera's coordinate system];
determining misalignment of the radar sensor using a difference between the determined orientation and the reference orientation [0085 for indicating desired orientation, 0100];
and configuring the calibration of the radar sensor to compensate for determined misalignment [0087, 0103 for adjusts the orientation of the adaptive cruise control sensor].
Regarding Claim 6, Murray teaches a verification device for verifying calibration of alignment of an automotive radar, the verification device comprising [0032 for using support beam for calibration]:
a frame [figure 2 for having a vehicle frame];
and mounting means for mounting to the verification device and to a vehicle, wherein [0028-0029 for having supports for sensors and sensors mounting on front of vehicle with figure 7]:
the mounting means is configured to mate with receiving means on the vehicle for receiving a radar sensor at a reference orientation such that [0034-0035 for determine the position and orientation of the auxiliary camera's coordinate system in relation to the coordinate system of the aligner system],
when the radar sensor is detached from the receiving means and the mounting means is attached to the receiving means, the verification device has the reference orientation, the frame includes [0032, and 0064 for beam source around the sensor axis, also 0079]:
a first surface for receiving and reflecting a first laser beam from a first laser source, and a second surface for receiving and reflecting a second laser beam from a second laser source [0029 for two optical sensor adjustment element with 0065-0068],
the first and second reflecting surfaces are adjacent to each other such that the verification device outputs a reflected first laser beam and a reflected second laser beam in laterally spaced parallel planes [0029 for reflecting the beam with 0069-0071],
and each plane is perpendicular to a ground plane that the vehicle is positioned on [0076-0078, and 0084].
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 2-5, 7, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al (US 2005/0096807 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Rando (US 6067152 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Murray teaches providing the first laser beam at a first elevation angle with respect to a ground plane that the vehicle is positioned on [0069 for using horizontal axis, 0076-0077].
Murray fails to explicitly teach and providing the second laser beam at a second elevation angle with respect to the ground plane, wherein and the difference between the first elevation angle and the second elevation angle is at least 2 degrees.
Rando has a system for checking alignment of laser beam projecting instruments, and for enabling accurate calibration of an instrument (abstract) and teaches and providing the second laser beam at a second elevation angle with respect to the ground plane, wherein and the difference between the first elevation angle and the second elevation angle is at least 2 degrees [col 2, lines 40-50 for determining error of beams and getting six degrees of freedom, with col 4, lines 1-10].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the angle calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 3, Murray teaches providing the first laser beam and the second laser beam [0075-0076 for using carrier bar and making offsets and directing reflection].
Murray fails to explicitly teach in laterally spaced parallel planes, wherein each plane is perpendicular to the ground plane.
Rando has a system for checking alignment of laser beam projecting instruments, and for enabling accurate calibration of an instrument (abstract) and teaches and providing the second laser beam at a second elevation angle with respect to the ground plane, wherein and the difference between the first elevation angle and the second elevation angle is at least 2 degrees [col 3, lines 5-20].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the angle calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 4, Murray teaches the target is arranged such that an intersection of a boresight of the verification device with the target [0040, 0085 for the mirror 30 are perpendicular to the vehicle thrust line].
Murray fails to explicitly teach is at a midpoint of a line joining the first reference position and the second reference position.
Rando has a system for checking alignment of laser beam projecting instruments, and for enabling accurate calibration of an instrument (abstract) and teaches target is arranged such that an intersection of a boresight of the verification device with the target is at a midpoint of a line joining the first reference position and the second reference position [col 2, lines 35-45 to receive full range of errors in beams 8 and 10].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the alignment calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 5, Murray teaches measuring a first difference between an offset between a first target point and a second target point in a first direction and an offset between a first reference point and a second reference point in the first direction [0074-0075 for getting offset from carrier bar];
determining a pitch of the verification device, relative to the reference orientation, using the first difference [0089-0090 for vertical adjustment for position and orientation];
and determining a yaw of the verification device, relative to the reference orientation, using the second difference, wherein the first direction and second direction are perpendicular to each other and the second direction is perpendicular to the ground plane [0082-0084 for getting position and orientation of auxiliary camera system].
Murray fails to explicitly teach measuring a second difference between an offset between the first target point and the second target point in a second direction and an offset between the first reference point and the second reference point in the second direction.
Weber has an invention relates to a radar sensor unit having a radar sensor and having an orientation sensor (abstract) and teaches measuring a second difference between an offset between the first target point and the second target point in a second direction and an offset between the first reference point and the second reference point in the second direction [col 4, lines 1-15].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the alignment calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 7, Murray teaches the first and second surfaces have angles of inclination, with respect to the ground plane [0076-0078 for having rotatable carried on the central pod].
Murray fails to explicitly teach that are offset from each other by at least 2 degrees such that the reflected first and second beams have different angles of elevation.
Rando has a system for checking alignment of laser beam projecting instruments, and for enabling accurate calibration of an instrument (abstract) and teaches that are offset from each other by at least 2 degrees such that the reflected first and second beams have different angles of elevation [col 2, lines 40-50 for determining error of beams and getting six degrees of freedom, with col 4, lines 1-10].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the angle calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 9, Murray teaches a method of calibrating a verification device, the method comprising [0035-0036 for orientation with auxiliary camera with 0071]:
using the verification device to reflect and output first and second laser beams [figure 7 for showing verification device with vehicle];
positioning a target at a first distance from the verification device [figure 2, and 0081-0082];
determining points of incidence of the reflected first and second laser beams on a target screen [0095 for using screen to determine correct angle, 0101];
positioning the target at a second distance from the verification device [0095 and 0202 for using computer to verify alignment];
determining the points of incidence of the reflected first and second laser beams on the target [0029 with second element on second mirror also 0076, 0079];
determining a difference in elevation and azimuth of the reflected first and second laser beams using the points of incidence of the reflected first and second laser beams on the target at the first and second distances, and the difference between the first and second distances [0029 with second element on second mirror also 0076, 0079].
Murray fails to explicitly teach and outputting calibration data defining an expected configuration of first and second reflected laser beams output by the verification device when the verification device is mounted to a vehicle at a reference orientation.
Rando has a system for checking alignment of laser beam projecting instruments, and for enabling accurate calibration of an instrument (abstract) and teaches and outputting calibration data defining an expected configuration of first and second reflected laser beams output by the verification device when the verification device is mounted to a vehicle at a reference orientation [col 3, lines 5-20].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the angle calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 10, Murray teaches the first distance and the second distance are measured using two or more reference lasers [0029 for two optical sensor adjustment element, with 0035 for using positions and orientations of target to align the coordinates system].
Regarding Claim 13, Murray fails to explicitly teach the first laser beam is provided by a first laser source and the second laser beam is provided by a second laser source.
Rando has a system for checking alignment of laser beam projecting instruments, and for enabling accurate calibration of an instrument (abstract) and teaches the first laser beam is provided by a first laser source and the second laser beam is provided by a second laser source [col 2, lines 30-40].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the angle calculations as taught by Rando for the purpose to maintain consistent sensitivity among beams (Rando, col 2, lines 40-50).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al (US 2005/0096807 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Crawford et al (US 10942045 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Murray fails to explicitly teach the frame includes aluminum.
Crawford has a portable sensor calibration target includes a frame assembly (abstract) and teaches the frame includes aluminum [col 4, lines 45].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the material calculations as taught by Crawford for the purpose to use lightweight material that is easily detected by lidar (Crawford, col 4, lines 45-55).
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al (US 2005/0096807 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Borruso (US 2014/0022115 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Murray fails to explicitly teach the first laser beam is provided by a first laser source and the second laser beam is provided by a second laser source.
Borruso has methods for aligning a radar sensor included in a vehicle (abstract) and teaches the first laser beam is provided by a first laser source and the second laser beam is provided by a second laser source [0018 for two laser diodes (sources) that create cross-beam acts as a point of reference for the thrust line].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the beam calculations as taught by Borruso for the purpose to align the radar sensor (Borruso, 0019).
Regarding Claim 12, Murray fails to explicitly teach a first laser source configured to provide the first laser beam, and a second laser source configured to provide the second laser beam.
Borruso has methods for aligning a radar sensor included in a vehicle (abstract) and teaches a first laser source configured to provide the first laser beam, and a second laser source configured to provide the second laser beam [0018 for two laser diodes (sources) that create cross-beam acts as a point of reference for the thrust line].
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 laser alignment techniques, as disclosed by Murray, further including the beam calculations as taught by Borruso for the purpose to align the radar sensor (Borruso, 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 6, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that the target is irradiated using two beams to determine rotational misalignment of the radar. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Murray teaches two later beans (incident and reflection) whose position on a target is compared to a reference coincident position to determine radar sensor alignment [Murray, 0087 for adjusts the orientation of the adaptive cruise control sensor until the reflected beam from the mirror coincides with the laser light beam from the source].
In applicant’s arguments page 8, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states claim 1 requires two laser beams reflected by a verification device. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Claim 1 states “providing, via reflection by the verification device, a first laser beam and a second laser beam spaced apart from the first laser beam” which could be read as the verification device merely being in the optical path that provides the beams, not necessarily being the original source of reflection, leaving open an interpretation that the beams originate elsewhere and the verification device simply reflect/passes the beams.
In applicant’s arguments page 8, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Rando and Crawford do not cure the deficiency of Murray. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Rando teaches comparing laser beam spot positions on a target to reference marks to verify alignment [Rando, col 1, lines 25-35] and Crawford teaches comparing detected positions to expected reference positions to determine misalignment [Crawford, Fig 12, and col 15, lines 50-65] – both strengthen Murray’s reference position limitation [Murray, 0087].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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, William 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights