DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 1023 based on CHO as modified by Ichimaru, the Applicant purports that the prior art fails to teach the amended limitation “the first stationary reflection point information set being obtained at a first point in time when the vehicle is stopped and before an ignition switch transitions from ON to OFF.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In support of the above position, the Applicant points to paragraphs [0047], [0049], [0055] of CHO. As indicated by the Applicant, paragraph [0055] discloses that a first geometry information and a second geometry information are compared. This geometry information corresponds to the claimed “stationary reflection point information.” Paragraphs [0047] and [0049] disclose embodiments directed to the time in which the first geometry information and the second geometry information may be collected, and particularly indicate that first geometry information may be identified “at the time when the ignition is off.”
Paragraph [0106] of CHO clarifies however, that “the vehicle can form geometry information before turning off the ignition.” As geometry information may be collected before the ignition switch transitions from ON to OFF, the Examiner maintains the art rejection.
The Applicant purports that the prior art fails to disclose wherein “the processor is configured to […] not to provide the solid object information to other devices when a calculated similarity between a first stationary reflection point information set and the a second stationary reflection point information set is below a threshold,” and “ when the calculated similarity exceeds the threshold, output corrected solid object information using a stored correction value” without providing evidence or argument in support of this position. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants assertion. Cho as modified by Ichimaru are relied upon to teach the above limitations. Paragraphs [0007] and [0014] of Cho disclose determining a similarity value between first geometry information and second geometry information and comparing that value to a threshold. Paragraph [0118] of Cho discloses “if the similarity is less than the reference value, the control unit can guide manual driving to a location where a position signal can be received (1011). In this manual driving mode “solid object information” is not utilized. Paragraph [0116] of Cho further discloses initiating an autonomous driving mode when the similarity exceeds a threshold. The system of Cho discloses only utilizing “solid object information” only when similarity exceeds a threshold. As additionally indicated in the previous action, Cho does not explicitly disclose sending the “solid object information” to other devices. Columns 18 and 19 of Ichimaru disclose providing solid object information to other devices only when “change point information” has been calculated. As no evidence or argument has been provided otherwise, the Examiner maintains that Cho as modified by Ichimaru disclose the above limitations.
The Applicant further purports that the prior art fails to disclose the "stored correction value […] (i) was obtained before the ignition switch transitions from ON to OFF and (ii) represents a deviation amount of the radar beam axis relative to a reference axis defining design-normal position and posture of the radar beam axis” as recited by amended independent claim 1. In support of this position the Applicant cites paragraph [0031] of the instant specification and argues that the previous rejection of the above limitations based on Ichimaru fail to disclose correcting faulty alignment or compensating for nonfunctioning components. It is initially noted that although the subject matter of the above limitation above limitation is generally related to the previously filled claim 2, the limitation itself is newly amended and was not presented in the previous rejection. Further, Applicant is respectfully reminded that the claims do not explicitly recite correcting faulty sensors or compensating for nonfunctioning components. The Examiner acknowledges paragraph [0031] of the instant specification; however, it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced MicroDevicesInc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. As set forth in the previous action [Col.13, ll.11-14] of Ichimaru discloses identifying an initial azimuth and a corrected “accurate” azimuth. The azimuth herein pertains to the radar beam axis relative to a reference “design-normal” axis. [Col.5, ll.25-27] of Ichimaru further discloses outputting corrected sensor information on the basis of positional object information. As the Claims do not specify the deviation amount must result from faulty sensors or nonfunctioning components, the Examiner maintains the art rejection.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO(KR20210086375A) in view of Ichimaru(US11238738B2).
Regarding claim 1, CHO discloses
An on-vehicle radar device comprising: a transceiver that (i) emits radio waves in a predetermined area (“The sensor unit (100) may include a […] radar” [0041])[…] (ii) receives radio waves reflected by solid objects located in the predetermined area (“The sensor unit (100) can obtain information about surrounding objects” [0040]), and a processor that acquires solid object information related to the solid objects located in the predetermined area based on physical quantities related to the emitted and received radio waves (“Radar can detect the distance and speed of objects” [0045] & “Meanwhile, the sensor fusion unit provided in the sensor unit (100) can fuse the acquired information to maintain optimal recognition performance by utilizing the characteristics of each sensor described above” [0046]), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a set of stationary reflection point information consisting of information related to each reflection point of a plurality of reflection points that are stationary in a vicinity of the vehicle based on the physical quantities (“The control unit (300) can generate current geometry information” [0064] & “Geometry information may refer to terrain information around the vehicle (1) formed based on map information and object information around the vehicle” [0048])); […] a calculated similarity between a first stationary reflection point information set and a second stationary reflection point information set (“The control unit can determine the similarity by comparing the positions of at least one fixed object included in the first geometry information and the second geometry information” [0010]) is below a threshold (“Meanwhile, if the similarity is less than the reference value, the control unit can guide manual driving to a location where a position signal can be received.” [0061]), the first stationary reflection point information set being obtained at a first point in time when the vehicle is stopped and before an ignition switch transitions from ON to OFF (“when the ignition is turned off, determines first geometry information corresponding to the vehicle location based on the map information and the surrounding object information” [0007] & “the vehicle can form geometry information before turning off the ignition” [0106]), and the second stationary reflection point information set-being obtained at a second point in time after the ignition switch has transitioned back from OFF to ON-and before the vehicle starts moving (“, and when the ignition is turned on after the ignition is turned off, determines second geometry information corresponding to the vehicle location based on the map information and the surrounding object information” [0007])
Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein solid object information is not transmitted to other devices until a predetermined condition is met. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, emits radio waves in a predetermined area centered on a radar beam axis extending in a specified direction from a vehicle on which the radar device is installed (FIG.19, Part.5 “Detection range of vehicle sensor”) […] the processor is configured to not to provide the solid object information to other devices (“When the control unit 81 has calculated the change point information as described above, the control unit 81 generates a communication packet addressed to the edge server 3 and including the calculated change point information “ [Col.18, ll.1-5]) and when the calculated similarity exceeds the threshold, output corrected solid object information using a stored correction value that (i) was obtained before the ignition switch transitions from ON to OFF (“the mobile terminal corrects the own sensor information on the basis of positional information of the object “ [Col.5, ll.25-27]) and (ii) represents a deviation amount of the radar beam axis relative to a reference axis defining design-normal position and posture of the radar beam axis (“The control unit 51 complements the vehicle position and the azimuth on the basis of input signals of the vehicle speed sensor 53 and the gyro sensor 54, and grasps the accurate present position and azimuth of the vehicle 5.” [Col.13, ll.11-14]).
Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho with the teachings of Ichimaru to incorporate the features of solid object information not being transmitted to other devices until a predetermined condition is met so as to gain the advantage of improving object prediction capabilities [Col.34, ll.18-20, Ichimaru]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cho discloses the device wherein, if the calculated similarity exceeds the threshold, corrects the solid object information based on the deviation amount (“Meanwhile, the control unit can determine and store the change values of X, Y offset and angle when the similarity of each geometry information is greater than or equal to a reference value.“ [0089]).
Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the processor acquires deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, the processor acquires the deviation amount at a time point before the first point in time (“The control unit 51 complements the vehicle position and the azimuth on the basis of input signals of the vehicle speed sensor 53 and the gyro sensor 54, and grasps the accurate present position and azimuth of the vehicle 5.” [Col.13, ll.11-14]), […] and provides the corrected solid object information to other devices at a point in time when the vehicle starts moving (“the mobile terminal corrects the own sensor information on the basis of positional information of the object “ [Col.5, ll.25-27]).
Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho with the teachings of Ichimaru to incorporate the features of acquiring deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions so as to gain the advantage of improving object prediction capabilities [Col.34, ll.18-20, Ichimaru]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the processor acquires deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, the processor acquires the deviation amount based on information related to behavior of the vehicle and information related to the plurality of reflection points while the vehicle is running time (“The control unit 51 complements the vehicle position and the azimuth on the basis of input signals of the vehicle speed sensor 53 and the gyro sensor 54, and grasps the accurate present position and azimuth of the vehicle 5.” [Col.13, ll.11-14])
Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho with the teachings of Ichimaru to incorporate the features of acquiring deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions so as to gain the advantage of improving object prediction capabilities [Col.34, ll.18-20, Ichimaru]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the processor acquires deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, the processor, when the similarity is below the threshold (“in the case where […]the azimuth of the vehicle 5 calculated by the control unit 51 on the basis of the measurement data by the gyro sensor 54 are deviated by a predetermined threshold or more, the control unit 51 sets the difference value therebetween, as the change point information.” [Col.15, ll.1-7]), controls a notification device equipped in the vehicle to present to the driver information indicating that the radar beam axis has been displaced (“At the time t2, the vehicle 5A transmits, to the edge server 3, change point information for making notification of movement (change point)” [Col.21, ll.51-64]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO(KR20210086375A) as modified by Ichimaru(US11238738B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LIU(US20160202355A1)
Regarding claim 5, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cho as modified by Ichimaru does not explicitly disclose nor limit measuring the strength of the radio waves. LIU teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. LIU discloses wherein, the physical quantities include strength of the radio waves received by the transceiver (“The information generating portion 31 measures a representative value (hereinafter referred to as “the intensity of reflection”) of received power of a reflected signal” [0045]).
LIU teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho as modified by Ichimaru with the teachings of LIU to incorporate the features of measuring the strength of the radio waves so as to gain the advantage of improving object detection accuracy [0007, LIU]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Gandhi(US20130218398A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0026] “If the difference between the vehicle and object velocities is less than some velocity threshold (e.g., a fixed threshold, a variable threshold that is a fraction or percentage of the vehicle velocity, or some other type of threshold), then it is likely that the sensed object is stationary.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights