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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/14/2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klotzbuecher (EP3761054A1).
Regarding claim 1 Klotzbuecher discloses: A computer-implemented method for updating a calibration of one or more sensors in a vehicle (Para. 0010: “The method achieves angle calibration without relying on vehicle velocity, which is an advantage. The method instead uses a minimum detected distance to a stationary object, which is data that can be obtained with relatively high accuracy. Thus, a robust and accurate way to calibrate vehicle sensors is provided.”), the method comprising: obtaining sensor data from the one or more sensors (Para. 0009: “This object is obtained by a method for calibrating an angle measurement of a vehicle sensor in a vehicle. The method comprises obtaining a sequence of detections associated with a stationary target, determining a corresponding sequence of ground truth values associated with the stationary target, wherein the ground truth values are determined based on a minimum detected distance from the vehicle to the stationary target and on a track of the vehicle.”); determining a ground truth value based on at least a part of the sensor data and on one or more vehicle operation parameters (Para 0009: “This object is obtained by a method for calibrating an angle measurement of a vehicle sensor in a vehicle. The method comprises obtaining a sequence of detections associated with a stationary target, determining a corresponding sequence of ground truth values associated with the stationary target, wherein the ground truth values are determined based on a minimum detected distance from the vehicle to the stationary target and on a track of the vehicle. The method also comprises estimating a difference between the sequence of detections and the sequence of ground truth values and calibrating the angle measurement based on the estimated difference.”); determining calibration update data based on the ground truth value (Figure 4); and updating the calibration using the calibration update data (Para. 0037: “Having the actual radar detections 210 and the corresponding estimated ground truth 220, a calibration error can be determined by comparing the detections 210 to the corresponding estimated ground truth values. The difference between these two data sets can be used to correct the radar transceiver data and thus calibrate radar bearing. The corrected values 230 are indicated in Figure 2, and it is noted that the error has been reduced significantly.”).
Claims 13 and 15 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 13 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Klotzbuecher further teaches: determining the ground truth value includes determining one or more targets in a surrounding of the vehicle based on the sensor data(Figure 4; Para 0040: “o summarize, with reference to Figure 4, there is disclosed herein a method for calibrating an angle measurement 122 of a vehicle sensor 110 in a vehicle 100. The method comprises obtaining S1 a sequence of detections 210 associated with a stationary target 140. There are several known methods for classifying sensor detections, such as radar detections, as stationary (as opposed to being moving objects).”); and the one or more targets are determined by considering sensor data having a high signal to noise ratio (SNR) (Para 0027-0028: “According to an example, the vehicle sensor 110 is arranged to generate a number of data points comprising coordinates in a relative coordinate system, i.e., relative to the location and orientation of the vehicle sensor 110. The coordinates may be Cartesian coordinates, or they may be polar coordinates. The vehicle sensor 110 may also be arranged to generate raw data, or a more refined feature vector extracted from the sensor data.[0028]The data points may also comprise additional information, such as signal strength values or measures of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).”)
.
Regarding claim 3 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Klotzbuecher further teaches: wherein determining the ground truth value includes: determining one or more target parameters of the one or more targets in the surrounding of the vehicle based on the sensor data (Para. 0009: “The method comprises obtaining a sequence of detections associated with a stationary target, determining a corresponding sequence of ground truth values associated with the stationary target”); and determining the ground truth value based on the one or more target parameters of the target in the surrounding of the vehicle (Para. 0009: “The method comprises obtaining a sequence of detections associated with a stationary target, determining a corresponding sequence of ground truth values associated with the stationary target, wherein the ground truth values are determined based on a minimum detected distance from the vehicle to the stationary target and on a track of the vehicle. The method also comprises estimating a difference between the sequence of detections and the sequence of ground truth values and calibrating the angle measurement based on the estimated difference.”) .
Regarding claim 4 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Klotzbuecher further teaches: wherein the vehicle operation parameters include one or more of a position of the one or more sensors in the vehicle, a velocity of the vehicle, and a yaw rate of the vehicle (Para 0036: “The minimum distance dmin detected with respect to the stationary object is assumed to be directly to the side of the vehicle, this location 221 is the reference point for the sequence of ground truth values 220. The vehicle path is then backtracked in order to generate a series of ground truth values. In case the vehicle was driving along a straight line, then the ground truth values will also be distributed along a straight line as shown in Figure 2, parallel to the track of the vehicle. However, if the vehicle was following some other path, then this path will be reflected in the series of ground truth values. For instance, a vehicle that was executing a turn before the smallest distance was detected will yield a sequence of ground truth values with a curvature corresponding to a backtracking of the vehicle motion based on, e.g., the vehicle turning rate or yaw rate, and potentially also based on vehicle velocity.”).
Regarding claim 5 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Klotzbuecher further teaches: wherein the calibration update data is determined based on sensor data reflected from the one or more targets in the surrounding of the vehicle (Para. 0012: “According to aspects, the obtaining comprises detecting a stationary object in a target list associated with the vehicle sensor. It is an advantage that the method can be applied to normal target lists obtained from vehicle sensors. No major redesign is required in the vehicle sensor in order to be able to perform the calibration routine.”).
Regarding claim 6 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Klotzbuecher further teaches: wherein the reflected sensor data corresponds to a steering vector associated with the one or more targets and the one or more sensors (Para. 0016: “According to aspects, the method also comprises adjusting the ground truth values based an estimated track of the vehicle. This way additional calibration data can be obtained, e.g., since the method is not limited to straight driving scenarios. By accounting for vehicle motion in addition to the minimum distance, the method becomes applicable in a wider range of driving scenarios, which is an advantage.”).
Regarding claim 7 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Klotzbuecher further teaches: wherein the target parameters include one or more of a range of the target, a range rate of the target relative to the vehicle (Para. 0003: “Radar transceivers are configured to estimate distances between the transceiver and detected objects, for instance based on transmission of a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal. The relative velocity of the detected object with respect to the radar transceiver can also be determined based on a Doppler shift in received waveforms.”), based on the vehicle operation parameters and a corresponding vector of complex values from information included in the sensor data associated with one or more virtual antenna channels (Para. 0004: “Some radar transceivers are also arranged to estimate a bearing to a detected object in addition to distance and relative velocity. This bearing estimation can be achieved by using array antennas configured to determine relative phases of waveform components received at the different antenna elements in the antenna array.”).
Regarding claim 10 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Klotzbuecher further teaches: receiving the ground truth value and/or the calibration update data from a remote server (Para. 0043: “Radar transceivers are configured to estimate distances between the transceiver and detected objects, for instance based on transmission of a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal. The relative velocity of the detected object with respect to the radar transceiver can also be determined based on a Doppler shift in received waveforms.”).
Regarding claim 14 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Klotzbuecher further teaches: A vehicle comprising (Para. 0008: “It is an object of the present disclosure to provide a method for calibrating an angle measurement of a vehicle sensor in a vehicle which alleviate at least some of the above mentioned drawbacks. It is also an object of the present disclosure to provide corresponding control units, computer program products and vehicles.”).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Klotzbuecher (EP3761054A1) in view of Jiang (US11338819B2)
Regarding claim 8 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Klotzbuecher does not teach “wherein updating the calibration includes: updating the calibration by applying an algorithm onto only a portion of the data of the calibration using calibration update data “.
However, Jiang in the analogous arts teaches: wherein updating the calibration includes: updating the calibration by applying an algorithm onto only a portion of the data of the calibration using calibration update data (Para. 13: “According to some embodiments, a cloud server receives a vehicle calibration request from a client device over a network. The vehicle calibration request includes a set of calibration data collected from one or more vehicles and a first calibration category. The cloud server provides vehicle calibration services for one or more predetermined categories for a plurality of clients over the network. The cloud server performs a machine-learning operation to train a calibration model associated with the first calibration category based on the set of calibration data, where the first category is one of the plurality predetermined categories. The cloud server sends the calibration model to a destination device, where the calibration model is to be deployed to calibrate control commands of an autonomous driving system during autonomous driving of an autonomous driving vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klotzbuecher with Jiang to incorporate the feature of: wherein updating the calibration includes: updating the calibration by applying an algorithm onto only a portion of the data of the calibration using calibration update data. Klotzbuecher and Jiang are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for calibration of sensors. However, Klotzbuecher fails to disclose a feature of applying the calibration algorithm only on a sub-set of data. This feature is disclosed by Jiang. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Klotzbuecher with Jiang to incorporate the feature of: wherein updating the calibration includes: updating the calibration by applying an algorithm onto only a portion of the data of the calibration using calibration update data as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 9 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Klotzbuecher does not teach “wherein the algorithm is applied by a trained machine learning model “.
However, Jiang in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the algorithm is applied by a trained machine learning model (Figure 5, step 526).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klotzbuecher with Jiang to incorporate the feature of: wherein the algorithm is applied by a trained machine learning model. Klotzbuecher and Jiang are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for calibration of sensors. However, Klotzbuecher fails to disclose a feature of applying the calibration algorithm only on a sub-set of data. This feature is disclosed by Jiang. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Klotzbuecher with Jiang to incorporate the feature of: wherein the algorithm is applied by a trained machine learning model as such a feature would speed up computations thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Klotzbuecher (EP3761054A1) in view of Lundin (DE112019000846T5).
Regarding claim 11 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Klotzbuecher does not teach “determining whether the updated calibration is associated with a reference value; and in response to the updated calibration not being associated with the reference value, repeating updating the calibration using the sensor data “.
However, Lundin in the analogous arts teaches: determining whether the updated calibration is associated with a reference value (Brief Description: “Thanks to the aspects described, the functionality of various sensors in a vehicle can be checked regularly when passing or stopping at locations that include one or more reference objects with known positions and properties. A malfunction can be detected by comparing received information relating to a position and properties with the corresponding information determined by the sensors.”); and in response to the updated calibration not being associated with the reference value, repeating updating the calibration using the sensor data (Brief Description: “Thanks to the aspects described, the functionality of various sensors in a vehicle can be checked regularly when passing or stopping at locations that include one or more reference objects with known positions and properties. A malfunction can be detected by comparing received information relating to a position and properties with the corresponding information determined by the sensors. The misaligned sensor can also be calibrated. This process can be repeated until a malfunction (which exceeds a predetermined threshold value) is not detected by any sensor in / on the vehicle. This increases road safety. It is also avoided that the vehicle has to interrupt and stop the ongoing transport while it waits for a human service agent to come and check / calibrate / replace the sensors on the vehicle. This saves time and money.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klotzbuecher with Lundin to incorporate the feature of: determining whether the updated calibration is associated with a reference value; and in response to the updated calibration not being associated with the reference value, repeating updating the calibration using the sensor data. Klotzbuecher and Lundin are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for sensor calibration. However, Klotzbuecher fails to disclose a feature of repeat calibration of sensors. This feature is disclosed by Lundin. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Klotzbuecher with Lundin to incorporate the feature of: determining whether the updated calibration is associated with a reference value; and in response to the updated calibration not being associated with the reference value, repeating updating the calibration using the sensor data as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 12 Klotzbuecher discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Klotzbuecher does not teach” determining an operating instruction for the vehicle based on the updated calibration affecting a function of a vehicle assistance system, wherein the function includes: in response to it being determined that the calibration is not associated with the reference value, triggering a warning “.
However, Lundin in the analogous arts teaches: determining an operating instruction for the vehicle based on the updated calibration affecting a function of a vehicle assistance system (Detailed Description:” In some embodiments, the comparison may be between the determined 405 positions and appearances of the plurality of reference objects 120a , 120b , 120c with the obtained 401 positions and appearances of the plurality of reference objects 120a , 120b , 120c be made. step 407 includes calibrating the sensor 130, 140a , 140b based on the obtained 401 position and the obtained 401 appearance of the reference object 120a , 120b , 120c if the difference between the determined 405 position and the determined 405 appearance of the reference object 120a , 120b , 120c and the obtained 401 position and the obtained 401 appearance of the reference object 120a , 120b , 120c exceeds a threshold. Calibrating the sensor 130, 140a , 140b can based on the obtained 401 position and the obtained 401 appearance of the plurality of reference objects 120a , 120b , 120c be made.
This process can be repeated until there is no sensor 130, 140a , 140b in / on the vehicle 100 a malfunction is detected which exceeds the predetermined threshold value.”), wherein the function includes: in response to it being determined that the calibration is not associated with the reference value, triggering a warning (: “If the calibration attempts according to step 407 fail, the reason may be the sensor 130 , 140a , 140b needs to be replaced. The vehicle 100 can then be instructed to park in a conveniently located, close-by location, and a request for assistance from a service technician can be issued as the sensor 130 , 140a , 140b may need to be repaired or replaced.”); and after updating the calibration, updating the warning (After the sensor is repaired or replace, it is obvious for the technician to reset the alarm using methods that are well known in the arts) .
The reason to combine Klotzbuecher with Lundin is same as one given in claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 Resha H. Desai, can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648