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 .
Priority
The pending application 18/681,800, filed on 6 FEB 2024, is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/JP2022/030332, filed on 8 AUG 2022, and claims priority from foreign application JP2021-140481, filed on 30 AUG 2021 in Japan.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 APR 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 2 APR 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 14 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 12-13, and 15-16 have been cancelled. Claims 18-20 have been added. Claims 1, 5-11, 14, and 17-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 11, and 18 being independent.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous office action dated 14 JAN 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (EP 3,349,038 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0389416 A1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-11, 14 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant teaches an electronic device, method for controlling an electronic device and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instruction to perform clustering on radar reception signals, determine a subset of clusters among the plurality of clusters that correspond to a detection of a single object, and determine a cluster among the subset of clusters whose area of a range over which a point group of points in the cluster spreads is the smallest.
The closet prior art was found to be Yan et al. (EP 3,349,038 A1), Hong et al. (US 2021/0389416 A1), Sugano et al. (WO 2021/033240 A1), and Norihiro (JP 2012145444 A).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Yan et al. discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
a transmission antenna that transmits a transmission wave (Yan et al. “Both the emitter and detector may comprise multiple elements to form an antenna array as is known in the art. So in other words the objects in the environment are illuminated with radar, and echo signals (radar reflections/detections/returns) are received for processing in the later.” - ¶ [0023]);
a reception antenna that receives a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave (Yan et al. “Voth the emitter and detector may comprise multiple elements to form an antenna array as is known in the art. So in other words the objects in the environment are illuminated with radar, and echo signals (radar reflections/detections/returns) are received for processing in the later.” - ¶ [0023]); and
a signal processor (Yan et al. “The emitter/detection units are mounted on the (host) vehicle 1, which includes processing means to process data of the radar returns.” - ¶ [0021]) that performs clustering on reception signals detected from the reflection wave to generate a plurality of clusters (Yan et al. “radar detections are clustered (i.e. grouped) by e.g. known clustering algorithms.” - ¶ [0026]), cluster spreads (Yan et al. “Where extension(rlon) × extension(rlat) × extension(rele) is the 3 dimensional size of a box within or bounding the cluster' i.e. the spread function.” - ¶ [0043])
Sugano et al.
An electronic device comprising:
a transmission antenna that transmits a transmission wave (Sugano et al. “The radio signal transmitted from the transmitting antenna 151 of the radar device 150 is reflected by the obstacle 110 and received by the receiving antenna 155.” - ¶ [0034]);
a reception antenna that receives a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave (Sugano et al. “The radio signal transmitted from the transmitting antenna 151 of the radar device 150 is reflected by the obstacle and received by the receiving antenna 155.” - ¶ [0034]); and
a signal processor that performs clustering on reception signals detected from the reflection wave to generate a plurality of clusters (Sugano et al. “Furthermore, since multiple reflection points are detected for a single target, clustering may be performed to group the detected points into clusters for each target based on the distance between the detected points.” - ¶ [0041]).
Norihiro discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
a transmission antenna that transmits a transmission wave;
a reception antenna that receives a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave; and
a signal processor that performs clustering on reception signals detected from the reflection wave to generate a plurality of clusters (Norihiro “In clustering, the three-dimensional positions of detected points in a point cloud are compared to form a single object, and detected points that can be considered as one object are combined, thereby clustering the detected points included in the point cloud of three-dimensional objects.” - ¶ [0028]), and outputs a representative point of the cluster as a result of detection of the single object (Norihiro “For example, the centroid position (three-dimensional position) of the clustered point cloud for the same object is calculated at each time point, and the velocity vector is calculated from the centroid at each time point.” - ¶ [0029]).
It would not have been oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of the above references to yield the applicant’s claimed invention. The cited reference fail to individually disclose, or suggest when combined, an electronic device comprising: a transmission antenna… a reception antenna… a signal processor that performs clustering… determines a cluster among the subset of clusters whose area of a range over which a point group of points in the cluster spreads is the smallest.
No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants’ invention, specifically determining a cluster among the subset of clusters whose area of a range over which a point group of points in the cluster spreads is the smallest in combination with the recited structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 5-10 and 17 are allowed as depending from allowed claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 14 are allowed for similar reasons as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (WO 2021/033240 A1, cited by applicant tin IDS dated 7 APR 2026) in Norihiro (JP 2012145444 A, cited by applicant in IDS dated 7 APR 2026).
Regarding claim 18 (New), Sugano et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugano et al. has been struck-through]
An electronic device comprising:
a transmission antenna that transmits a transmission wave (Sugano et al. “The radio signal transmitted from the transmitting antenna 151 of the radar device 150 is reflected by the obstacle 110 and received by the receiving antenna 155.” - ¶ [0034]);
a reception antenna that receives a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave (Sugano et al. “The radio signal transmitted from the transmitting antenna 151 of the radar device 150 is reflected by the obstacle and received by the receiving antenna 155.” - ¶ [0034]); and
a signal processor (Sugano et al. “The movement information analysis unit 122, the search range determination unit 123, and the noise identification and removal unit 125 are composed of information processing circuits including, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), RAM, ROM (Read Only Memory), etc.” - ¶ [0025]) that performs clustering on reception signals detected from the reflection wave to generate a plurality of clusters (Sugano et al. “Furthermore, since multiple reflection points are detected for a single target, clustering may be performed to group the detected points into clusters for each target based on the distance between the detected points.” - ¶ [0041]), determines a first subset of clusters among the plurality of clusters that correspond to a detection of a single object (Sugano et al. “Furthermore, since multiple reflection points are detected for a single target, clustering may be performed to group the detected points into clusters for each target based on the distance between the detected points.” - ¶ [0041]; where a subset of the plurality of clusters can comprise one cluster of the plurality of clusters),
Norihiro discloses:
determines a second subset of clusters among the first subset of clusters excluding a largest cluster whose area of a range over which a point group of points in the largest cluster spreads is the largest (Norihiro “Therefore, it is possible to narrow down the clustering point cloud to those with pedestrian-like attributes by excluding points that are clearly too large (those that are clearly too large to be considered pedestrians)…” - ¶ [0057]), and outputs a result of detection of the single object based on the second subset of clusters (Norihiro “… and then perform each process using only the narrowed-down clustering point cloud.” - ¶ [0057]; “In the point cloud movement information determination process, for each clustered point cloud, the movement information of the clustered point cloud (velocity vector, centroid position information, etc.) calculated in the point cloud tracking process is accumulated in a time series for a predetermined period of time…” - ¶ [0030]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Norihiro into the invention of Sugano et al. to yield the invention of claim 18 above. Both Sugano et al. and Norihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar devices for detecting the area around a vehicle and performing point clustering to detect objects. Sugano et al. discloses the limitations outlined above. However, Sugano et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the electronic device determines a second subset of clusters among the first subset of clusters excluding a largest cluster whose area of a range over which a point group of points in the largest cluster spreads is the largest, and outputs a result of detection of the single object based on the second subset of clusters. This feature is disclosed by Norihiro where point clouds that are determined to be too large, i.e. the largest clusters, are excluded from the detection results (Norihiro ¶ [0030]). The combination of Sugano et al. and Norihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the likelihood of false detections (Norihiro ¶ [0009]), and shortening the processing time and memory requirements (Norihiro ¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 19 (New), Sugano et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugano et al. has been struck-through]
The electronic device according to claim 18
Norihiro discloses:
wherein the result of the detection of the single object is an average of X-coordinates and an average of Y-coordinates of point groups of points in the second subset of clusters (Norihiro “For example, the centroid position (three-dimensional position) of the clustered point cloud for the same object is calculated at each time point, and the velocity vector is calculated form the centroid position at each time point.” - ¶ [0029]; where the centroid is determined as the average of the X-coordinates and Y-coordinates).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Norihiro into the invention of Sugano et al. to yield the invention of claim 19 above. Both Sugano et al. and Norihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar devices for detecting the area around a vehicle and performing point clustering to detect objects. Sugano et al. as modified above discloses the electronic device according to claim 18. However, Sugano et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the result of the detection of the single object is an average of X-coordinates and an average of Y-coordinates of point groups of points in the second subset of clusters. This feature is disclosed by Norihiro where the centroid position is determined for each cluster (Norihiro ¶ [0029]). The combination of Sugano et al. and Norihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the likelihood of false detections (Norihiro ¶ [0009]), and shortening the processing time and memory requirements (Norihiro ¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 20 (New), Sugano et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugano et al. has been struck-through]
The electronic device according to claim 18
Norihiro discloses:
wherein the signal processor determines the second subset of clusters among the first subset of clusters excluding a plurality of largest clusters, whose areas of range over which point groups of points in the plurality of largest clusters spread are the largest (Norihiro “Therefore, it is also possible to narrow down the clustering point cloud to those with pedestrian-like attributes by excluding points that are clearly too large (those that are clearly too large to be considered pedestrians)…” - ¶ [0057]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Norihiro into the invention of Sugano et al. to yield the invention of claim 20 above. Both Sugano et al. and Norihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar devices for detecting the area around a vehicle and performing point clustering to detect objects. Sugano et al. as modified above discloses the electronic device according to claim 18. However, Sugano et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the signal processor determines the second subset of clusters among the first subset of clusters excluding a plurality of largest clusters, whose areas of range over which point groups of points in the plurality of largest clusters spread are the largest. This feature is disclosed by Norihiro where the centroid position is determined for each cluster (Norihiro ¶ [0029]). The combination of Sugano et al. and Norihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the likelihood of false detections (Norihiro ¶ [0009]), and shortening the processing time and memory requirements (Norihiro ¶ [0057]).
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 NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 Desai can be reached at (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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
10 JUN 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights