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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in that the detection of a driving surface in an environment of the radar blindness and blockage detection is not explicitly taught. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fetterman et al. (US 20200241111 hereinafter Fetterman) in view of Abt et al. (US 20200353942 hereinafter Abt) and further in view of Elwart et al. (US 9453910 hereinafter Elwart).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman et al. (US 20200241111 hereinafter Fetterman) in view of Abt et al. (US 20200353942 hereinafter Abt) and further in view of Elwart et al. (US 9453910 hereinafter Elwart).
Regarding claim 1, Fetterman teaches A radar blindness and blockage detector, comprising (Title “Apparatus And Method For Detecting Radar Sensor Blockage”): a radar sensor configured to provide sensor blockage information by monitoring properties of a radar signal (0001 “The present disclosure is related to automotive detection systems such as automotive radar systems and, in particular, to an apparatus and method for detecting and correcting for blockage of an automotive radar sensor”); and
a processing device configured to (0004 “processor”):
(i)
(ii) calculate a probability indicator of a sensor blockage of the radar sensor based on the received sensor data (0044 “For example, referring to FIG. 4C, if a value of 2,000.00 for filtered energy is received, it is likely to be unblocked sensor data, with a very small probability to be 50% blocked data, and virtually zero probability of being 80% blocked data”), and
Fetterman does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Abt teaches receive sensor data from at least one further sensor and/or to receive data from an external data source, calculate a probability indicator of a sensor blockage of the radar sensor based on the received sensor data from the at least one further sensor and/or the received data from the external data source (0015 “determine an prior blockage probability of each single sensor of the plurality of sensors, to receive sensor data of the sensor of the plurality of sensors, to determine a performance of the sensor based on the received sensor data”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Abt with the teachings of Fetterman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Abt 0054). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Abt and Fetterman disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Elwart teaches
determine a blindness and blockage of the radar sensor by processing the sensor blockage information from the radar sensor using the calculated probability indicator of the sensor blockage (para 18 “A blocked sensor determination may be based on the expected return signal magnitude and the actual return signal magnitude.”) and
wherein the processing device is configured to detect a driving surface in an environment of the radar blindness and blockage detector, and to calculate the probability indicator based on the detected driving surface (Abstract “A controller monitoring the radar system may detect a radar blockage when a return signal magnitude is less than a threshold. A typical response may be to set a radar blockage diagnostic under such a condition”; para 6 “The at least one controller may be further programmed to receive surface roughness information, and conditions indicative of the expected return magnitude being greater than the predetermined value may include a change in surface roughness.”; para 0034 “the low radar return may be the result of a sparse environment and not a blockage condition.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Elwart with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce false detections (Elwart para 18). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Elwart merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Elwart and the cited prior art disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to adapt one or more filter or threshold parameters for determining the blindness and blockage of the radar sensor based on the calculated probability indicator of the sensor blockage (Fetterman 0064 “the probability threshold at which it is declared that the probability indicates blockage can be changed”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to receive sensor data from an optical sensor and/or an ultrasonic sensor and/or a temperature sensor and/or a humidity sensor and/or a rain sensor (Abt 0037 “For the shown example, the blockage probability of a Lidar sensor may be determined as follows” [LIDAR corresponds to an optical sensor]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Abt with the teachings of Fetterman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Abt 0054). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Abt and Fetterman disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to receive data from data from an external cloud service (Abt 0007 “The blockage of the particular sensors is determined taking into account data from external data sources, e.g., map data, for calculating the blockage probability of the sensor.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Abt with the teachings of Fetterman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Abt 0054). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Abt and Fetterman disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to detect weather conditions in an environment of the radar blindness and blockage detector, and to calculate the probability indicator based on the detected weather condition (Abt 0008 “determining of a second blockage probability of the sensor of the plurality of sensors of the ego vehicle using a predefined performance of the sensor regarding a current weather condition. For example, a weather condition may comprise fog, rain, sunlight, snow, dirt, dust or ice.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Abt with the teachings of Fetterman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Abt 0054). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Abt and Fetterman disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to dynamically increase and/or decrease the probability indicator of a sensor blockage based on the received sensor data from the at least one further sensor and/or the data from the external data source (Abt 0007 “The blockage of the particular sensors is determined taking into account data from external data sources, e.g., map data, for calculating the blockage probability of the sensor. The data from the external data sources defines the ground truth for determining the blockage probability of the sensor. By combining the prior blockage probability and the performance of the sensor, this may provide the advantage that the blockage of a particular sensor is identified more precisely and/or more efficiently.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Abt with the teachings of Fetterman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Abt 0054). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Abt and Fetterman disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to dynamically increase and/or decrease thresholds or timers used to detect sensor blockage (Fetterman 0064 “the probability threshold at which it is declared that the probability indicates blockage can be changed”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to receive position data from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor (Abt 0040 “The plurality of sensors may comprise any sensor of the ego vehicle, e.g., a Radar sensor, a Lidar sensor, a camera sensor, and/or a GPS sensor. The data related to an external reference point may be map data comprising one or more landmarks as external reference points. A landmark may comprise a bridge, a road signal, a sign, a traffic sign and/or a traffic light. A position of the landmark may be obtained by GPS data.”), and to retrieve map data corresponding to the position data to calculate the probability indicator of the sensor blockage based on the retrieved map data (Elwart para 26 “The navigation function may include a library of maps and route information. The navigation function may include a display for providing feedback of the current location on a map.”; 0039 “A library of base radar signatures may be developed to identify sparse environments in advance. For example, areas that are known to be sparse may be included as part of the information stored for the navigation function.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Elwart with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce false detections (Elwart para 18). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Elwart merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Elwart and the cited prior art disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The radar blindness and blockage detector according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to adapt a weighting factor applied to the sensor blockage information from the radar sensor based on the calculated probability indicator of the sensor blockage (Abt 0032 “An exemplary data source may provide weather information, in particular local weather information, which may be used to adjust the importance of a particular sensor of the ego vehicle. For example, at night, the probability that a camera is blocked due to direct sun light is considered to be very low. In summer, the probability that a LIDAR is blocked due to salt on the road or snow should also be very low.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Abt with the teachings of Fetterman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Abt 0054). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features to determine blockage. Since both Abt and Fetterman disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Lehner et al. (US PAT 7552012) discloses “A device for detecting objects in the blind spot on a side of vehicle includes a ranging main sensor, an auxiliary sensor, a comparison unit, and an output unit for outputting a warning signal which indicates objects in the blind spot. The detection range of the main sensor extends in the rear area of the vehicle and toward the respective vehicle side. The auxiliary sensor has a detection range which extends angularly offset to the detection range of the main sensor in the rear area of the vehicle. The comparison unit ascertains whether the detected object is a following vehicle on the basis of predefined correlations between the detection signals of the main sensor and the auxiliary sensor, and the detection unit blocks the output unit from outputting a warning signal when a following vehicle is recognized. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights