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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 07/17/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-10, 13, and 24 have been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 12, 14, 16, and 22 were withdrawn from consideration. Claims 11, 15, 17-21, 23, and 25-30 stand rejected. The Examiner notes that the Applicant states on p. 6 of the Remarks that claim 24 was canceled, but the included claim set includes neither the text of claim 24 nor an indication that it has been canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/17/2026, have been carefully considered by the Examiner. As the Applicant notes, the amendment of the independent claims to include the limitation, “…wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is offset in height relative to a plane passing through the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor” is sufficient to overcome the rejection set out in the previous Office Action. However, the arguments are moot in light of a new reference, not cited in the previous Office Action, that addresses this amended limitation.
Applicant’s amendment to the independent claims modifies the scope of the claims enough to necessitate the use of this new reference, because “a plane passing through the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor” is materially different from “a plane between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor” [boldface added for emphasis].
Applicant’s arguments regarding the allowability of the dependent claims are moot in light of the new reference.
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 11 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakobyan et al. (DE 102019219649 A1), hereinafter Hakobyan, in view of Chabaud et al. (US 2021/0080562 A1), hereinafter Chabaud.
Regarding claim 11, Hakobyan teaches (note: what Hakobyan does not teach is struck through),
A radar system (“The invention relates to a radar sensor system”), comprising:
at least three radar sensors (“In preferred embodiments, the arrangement comprises at least three angularly resolving radar sensors which are arranged in different positions in said direction.”) which are connected to one another in a phase-coherent manner (“The radar sensors are coupled to one another via a phase synchronization connection.”);
wherein a first radar sensor of the radar sensors and a second radar sensor of the radar sensors are disposed spaced apart from one another (fig. 1, radar sensors 10 and 12), such that a virtual sensor is created using bistatic measurement of at least the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor using a MIMO method (“In a second step, an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object within an angle search area, which corresponds to the angle range determined for each of the radar sensors in the first step, is determined on the basis of amplitude and / or phase relationships between signals received in the first step, which correspond to different monostatic and bistatic configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors.” See also, “The varying positions of the transmitting antenna elements relative to the receiving antenna elements then lead to additional phase differences and thus to signals which are equivalent to signals that would be obtained with a configuration with a single transmitting antenna element and additional (virtual) receiving antenna elements. In this way, the aperture is virtually enlarged and thus the angular resolution is improved.”), and wherein at least one third radar sensor of the radar sensors is disposed offset to the virtual sensor (fig. 1, radar sensor 14); and
wherein the radar system is configured to acquire an elevation angle of a target using the virtual sensor and the at least one third radar sensor (“With the radar sensor system, elevation angles of a located radar object can thus be determined with a previously unattainable high level of accuracy, even with comparatively large object distances”),
Chabaud teaches,
wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is offset in height relative to a plane passing through the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 6, radar sensor 60 is offset in height relative to a plane passing through radar sensors 10 and 12).
Hakobyan and Chabaud are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Hakobyan with the offset of Chabaud of Chabaud because the sensor offset of Chabaud enables locating the direction of objects in both azimuth and elevation, enabling high separation capability (see Chabaud, para. 0054).
Regarding claim 17 (note: what Hakobyan does not teach is struck through), Hakobyan teaches,
A method (“The object is further achieved by a method for operating a cooperative radar sensor system”) for acquiring an elevation angle (“With the radar sensor system, elevation angles of a located radar object can thus be determined with a previously unattainable high level of accuracy, even with comparatively large object distances”) using a radar system including at least three radar sensors (“In preferred embodiments, the arrangement comprises at least three angularly resolving radar sensors which are arranged in different positions in said direction.”) which are connected to one another in a phase-coherent manner (“The radar sensors are coupled to one another via a phase synchronization connection.”), the method comprising the following steps:
creating a virtual sensor using bistatic measurement of at least the first radar sensor of the radar sensors and a second radar sensor of the radar sensors using a MIMO method (“In a second step, an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object within an angle search area, which corresponds to the angle range determined for each of the radar sensors in the first step, is determined on the basis of amplitude and / or phase relationships between signals received in the first step, which correspond to different monostatic and bistatic configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors “ See also, “The varying positions of the transmitting antenna elements relative to the receiving antenna elements then lead to additional phase differences and thus to signals which are equivalent to signals that would be obtained with a configuration with a single transmitting antenna element and additional (virtual) receiving antenna elements. In this way, the aperture is virtually enlarged and thus the angular resolution is improved.”); and
evaluating data of the virtual sensor and data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in a phase-coherent manner in order to acquire an elevation angle of a target (“The determination of an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object carried out in the second step can then be carried out, for example, according to the principle of MIMO angle estimation. For this purpose, a superordinate angle estimation is carried out, in which the different configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors can be viewed as elements of a virtual MIMO array. For example, the individual radar sensors, which are arranged in different positions in the relevant direction, are viewed as a thinned array, and from each radar sensor, for example, only a single reference phase or complex amplitude is included in the evaluation for each located object and each transmitting radar sensor. The ambiguities of the angle estimation expected for the thinned out array are countered by restricting the angle estimation to an angle search space which corresponds to the angle range determined in the first step. As a result of the angle estimation divided into two steps, an angle estimation with high angular resolution can be carried out in a computationally efficient manner, and a high degree of robustness of the angle estimation is also achieved.”);
Chabaud teaches,
wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is offset in height relative to a plane passing through the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 6, radar sensor 60 is offset in height relative to a plane passing through radar sensors 10 and 12).
Hakobyan and Chabaud are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Hakobyan with the offset of Chabaud of Chabaud because the sensor offset of Chabaud enables locating the direction of objects in both azimuth and elevation, enabling high separation capability (see Chabaud, para. 0054).
Regarding claim 18, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the method according to claim 17. Hakobyan further teaches,
…wherein raw data from the sensors and/or preprocessed data are used in the joint evaluation (“In the first step, an angle estimate is therefore carried out for the individual radar sensors for a located radar object, and an angular range of the located radar object is determined…For example, the individual radar sensors, which are arranged in different positions in the relevant direction, are viewed as a thinned array, and from each radar sensor, for example, only a single reference phase or complex amplitude is included in the evaluation for each located object and each transmitting radar sensor. The ambiguities of the angle estimation expected for the thinned out array are countered by restricting the angle estimation to an angle search space which corresponds to the angle range determined in the first step.”).
Regarding claim 19, Hakobyan teaches (note: what Hakobyan does not teach is struck through),
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program (fig. 1, control and evaluation device 16) for acquiring an elevation angle (“The determination of an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object carried out in the second step can then be carried out, for example, according to the principle of MIMO angle estimation. For this purpose, a superordinate angle estimation is carried out, in which the different configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors can be viewed as elements of a virtual MIMO array. For example, the individual radar sensors, which are arranged in different positions in the relevant direction, are viewed as a thinned array, and from each radar sensor, for example, only a single reference phase or complex amplitude is included in the evaluation for each located object and each transmitting radar sensor. The ambiguities of the angle estimation expected for the thinned out array are countered by restricting the angle estimation to an angle search space which corresponds to the angle range determined in the first step. As a result of the angle estimation divided into two steps, an angle estimation with high angular resolution can be carried out in a computationally efficient manner, and a high degree of robustness of the angle estimation is also achieved.”) using a radar system including at least three radar sensors (“In preferred embodiments, the arrangement comprises at least three angularly resolving radar sensors which are arranged in different positions in said direction.”) which are connected to one another in a phase-coherent manner (“The radar sensors are coupled to one another via a phase synchronization connection.”), the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
creating a virtual sensor using bistatic measurement of at least the first radar sensor of the radar sensors and a second radar sensor of the radar sensors using a MIMO method (“In a second step, an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object within an angle search area, which corresponds to the angle range determined for each of the radar sensors in the first step, is determined on the basis of amplitude and / or phase relationships between signals received in the first step, which correspond to different monostatic and bistatic configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors “ See also, “The varying positions of the transmitting antenna elements relative to the receiving antenna elements then lead to additional phase differences and thus to signals which are equivalent to signals that would be obtained with a configuration with a single transmitting antenna element and additional (virtual) receiving antenna elements. In this way, the aperture is virtually enlarged and thus the angular resolution is improved.”); and
evaluating data of the virtual sensor and data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in a phase-coherent manner in order to acquire an elevation angle of a target (“The determination of an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object carried out in the second step can then be carried out, for example, according to the principle of MIMO angle estimation. For this purpose, a superordinate angle estimation is carried out, in which the different configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors can be viewed as elements of a virtual MIMO array. For example, the individual radar sensors, which are arranged in different positions in the relevant direction, are viewed as a thinned array, and from each radar sensor, for example, only a single reference phase or complex amplitude is included in the evaluation for each located object and each transmitting radar sensor. The ambiguities of the angle estimation expected for the thinned out array are countered by restricting the angle estimation to an angle search space which corresponds to the angle range determined in the first step. As a result of the angle estimation divided into two steps, an angle estimation with high angular resolution can be carried out in a computationally efficient manner, and a high degree of robustness of the angle estimation is also achieved.”);
Chabaud teaches,
wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is offset in height relative to a plane passing through the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 6, radar sensor 60 is offset in height relative to a plane passing through radar sensors 10 and 12).
Hakobyan and Chabaud are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Hakobyan with the offset of Chabaud of Chabaud because the sensor offset of Chabaud enables locating the direction of objects in both azimuth and elevation, enabling high separation capability (see Chabaud, para. 0054).
Regarding claim 20, Hakobyan teaches (note: what Hakobyan does not teach is struck through),
An electronic control unit (fig. 1, control and evaluation unit 16) configured to acquire an elevation angle and/or calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of radar sensors (“In a second step, an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object within an angle search area, which corresponds to the angle range determined for each of the radar sensors in the first step, is determined on the basis of amplitude and / or phase relationships between signals received in the first step, which correspond to different monostatic and bistatic configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors “ See also, “The varying positions of the transmitting antenna elements relative to the receiving antenna elements then lead to additional phase differences and thus to signals which are equivalent to signals that would be obtained with a configuration with a single transmitting antenna element and additional (virtual) receiving antenna elements. In this way, the aperture is virtually enlarged and thus the angular resolution is improved.”), using a radar system including at least three radar sensors (“In preferred embodiments, the arrangement comprises at least three angularly resolving radar sensors which are arranged in different positions in said direction.”) which are connected to one another in a phase-coherent manner (“The radar sensors are coupled to one another via a phase synchronization connection.”), the electronic control unit configured to:
create a virtual sensor using bistatic measurement of at least the first radar sensor of the radar sensors and a second radar sensor of the radar sensors using a MIMO method (“In a second step, an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object within an angle search area, which corresponds to the angle range determined for each of the radar sensors in the first step, is determined on the basis of amplitude and / or phase relationships between signals received in the first step, which correspond to different monostatic and bistatic configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors “ See also, “The varying positions of the transmitting antenna elements relative to the receiving antenna elements then lead to additional phase differences and thus to signals which are equivalent to signals that would be obtained with a configuration with a single transmitting antenna element and additional (virtual) receiving antenna elements. In this way, the aperture is virtually enlarged and thus the angular resolution is improved.”); and
evaluate data of the virtual sensor and data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in a phase-coherent manner in order to acquire an elevation angle of a target (“The determination of an estimated value for the angle of the located radar object carried out in the second step can then be carried out, for example, according to the principle of MIMO angle estimation. For this purpose, a superordinate angle estimation is carried out, in which the different configurations of transmitting and receiving radar sensors can be viewed as elements of a virtual MIMO array. For example, the individual radar sensors, which are arranged in different positions in the relevant direction, are viewed as a thinned array, and from each radar sensor, for example, only a single reference phase or complex amplitude is included in the evaluation for each located object and each transmitting radar sensor. The ambiguities of the angle estimation expected for the thinned out array are countered by restricting the angle estimation to an angle search space which corresponds to the angle range determined in the first step. As a result of the angle estimation divided into two steps, an angle estimation with high angular resolution can be carried out in a computationally efficient manner, and a high degree of robustness of the angle estimation is also achieved.”);
Chabaud teaches,
wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is offset in height relative to a plane passing through the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 6, radar sensor 60 is offset in height relative to a plane passing through radar sensors 10 and 12).
Hakobyan and Chabaud are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Hakobyan with the offset of Chabaud of Chabaud because the sensor offset of Chabaud enables locating the direction of objects in both azimuth and elevation, enabling high separation capability (see Chabaud, para. 0054).
Regarding claim 21, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the radar system according to claim 11. Hakobyan further teaches,
…wherein the radar system is situated in a motor vehicle (“The invention relates to a radar sensor system with an arrangement of at least two angularly resolving radar sensors on a motor vehicle.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakobyan in view Chabaud and further in view of Shollenberger (US 2019/0018128 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hakobyan teaches the radar system according to claim 11. Hakobyan in view of Chabaud does not teach,
…wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is rotated relative to a plane between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor
Shollenberger teaches,
…wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed such that it is rotated relative to a plane between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 6, third radar 616 is rotated relative to a plane between first radar 608 and second radar 610).
Hakobyan, Chabaud, and Shollenberger are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar system of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud with the rotation of Shollenberger because the rotated radar device of increases angular resolution and makes efficient use of available space on a vehicle.
Claims 23 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakobyan in view of Chabaud and further in view of Guo et al. (Guo, Y., Zhang Y., Tong, N., and Gong, J. (18 July 2016). Angle estimation and self-calibration method for bistatic MIMO radar with transmit and receive array errors. Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:1514-534.), hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 23, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the radar system according to claim 11. Hakobyan further teaches (note: what Hakobyan does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed at a location corresponding to the virtual sensor (fig. 1, third sensor 14 is disposed at the same horizontal position as the virtual sensor),
Guo teaches,
…and wherein the radar system is configured to calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of the radar sensors using the virtual sensor and the third radar sensor (p. 1516, para. 2, “In this paper, a novel angle estimation and self-calibration method, which considers all the above errors of the transmit and receive array, is presented for bistatic MIMO radar. First of all, the combined influences of the three array errors of the transmit and receive arrays are shown to be equivalent to angularly dependent gain-phase error. Then, with the help of two well-calibrated auxiliary sensors in both transmit and receive arrays, a reduced dimensional method, which can decouple the DODs, DOAs and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficients, is proposed to estimate the angles and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficient”).
Guo is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud with the radar system self-calibration of Guo because self-calibration is necessary for achieving high-resolution performance (see Guo, p. 1515, para. 3), and the structure of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud is appropriate for using the techniques of Guo to perform self-calibration.
Regarding claim 26, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud and further in view of Guo teaches the radar system according to claim 23. Hakobyan further teaches,
…wherein the radar system is situated in a motor vehicle (“The invention relates to a radar sensor system with an arrangement of at least two angularly resolving radar sensors on a motor vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 27, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the radar system according to claim 11. Hakobyan further teaches (note: what Hakobyan does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the at least one third radar sensor is disposed at a horizontal location corresponding to the virtual sensor while being vertically offset relative to a plane between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 1, radar sensor 14 is disposed at the same location as the virtual sensor comprising first radar sensor 10 and second radar sensor 12 and is vertically below a horizontal plane between said first and second radar sensors),
Guo teaches,
…and wherein the radar system is configured to calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of the radar sensors using overlapping antenna channels of the virtual sensor and the third radar sensor (p. 1516, para. 2, “In this paper, a novel angle estimation and self-calibration method, which considers all the above errors of the transmit and receive array, is presented for bistatic MIMO radar. First of all, the combined influences of the three array errors of the transmit and receive arrays are shown to be equivalent to angularly dependent gain-phase error. Then, with the help of two well-calibrated auxiliary sensors in both transmit and receive arrays, a reduced dimensional method, which can decouple the DODs, DOAs and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficients, is proposed to estimate the angles and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficient”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud with the radar system self-calibration of Guo because self-calibration is necessary for achieving high-resolution performance (see Guo, p. 1515, para. 3), and the structure of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud is appropriate for using the techniques of Guo to perform self-calibration.
Regarding claim 28, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the method according to claim 17. Hakobyan in view of Chabaud does not teach,
…further comprising calibrating and/or detecting a misalignment of the radar sensors based on the evaluation of the data of the virtual sensor and the data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in the phase-coherent manner.
Guo teaches,
…further comprising calibrating and/or detecting a misalignment of the radar sensors based on the evaluation of the data of the virtual sensor and the data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in the phase-coherent manner (p. 1516, para. 2, “In this paper, a novel angle estimation and self-calibration method, which considers all the above errors of the transmit and receive array, is presented for bistatic MIMO radar. First of all, the combined influences of the three array errors of the transmit and receive arrays are shown to be equivalent to angularly dependent gain-phase error. Then, with the help of two well-calibrated auxiliary sensors in both transmit and receive arrays, a reduced dimensional method, which can decouple the DODs, DOAs and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficients, is proposed to estimate the angles and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficient”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud with the radar system self-calibration of Guo because self-calibration is necessary for achieving high-resolution performance (see Guo, p. 1515, para. 3), and the structure of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud is appropriate for using the techniques of Guo to perform self-calibration.
Regarding claim 29, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium according to claim 19. Hakobyan in view of Chabaud does not teach,
…wherein the computer program, when executed by the computer, further cause the computer to calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of the radar sensors based on the evaluation of the data of the virtual sensor and the data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in the phase-coherent manner.
Guo teaches,
…wherein the computer program, when executed by the computer, further cause the computer to calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of the radar sensors based on the evaluation of the data of the virtual sensor and the data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in the phase-coherent manner (p. 1516, para. 2, “In this paper, a novel angle estimation and self-calibration method, which considers all the above errors of the transmit and receive array, is presented for bistatic MIMO radar. First of all, the combined influences of the three array errors of the transmit and receive arrays are shown to be equivalent to angularly dependent gain-phase error. Then, with the help of two well-calibrated auxiliary sensors in both transmit and receive arrays, a reduced dimensional method, which can decouple the DODs, DOAs and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficients, is proposed to estimate the angles and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficient”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud with the radar system self-calibration of Guo because self-calibration is necessary for achieving high-resolution performance (see Guo, p. 1515, para. 3), and the structure of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud is appropriate for using the techniques of Guo to perform self-calibration.
Regarding claim 30, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud teaches the electronic control unit according to claim 19. Hakobyan in view of Chabaud does not teach,
…wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of the radar sensors based on the evaluation of the data of the virtual sensor and the data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in the phase-coherent manner.
Guo teaches,
…wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to calibrate and/or detect a misalignment of the radar sensors based on the evaluation of the data of the virtual sensor and the data of at least one third radar sensor jointly in the phase-coherent manner (p. 1516, para. 2, “In this paper, a novel angle estimation and self-calibration method, which considers all the above errors of the transmit and receive array, is presented for bistatic MIMO radar. First of all, the combined influences of the three array errors of the transmit and receive arrays are shown to be equivalent to angularly dependent gain-phase error. Then, with the help of two well-calibrated auxiliary sensors in both transmit and receive arrays, a reduced dimensional method, which can decouple the DODs, DOAs and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficients, is proposed to estimate the angles and the equivalent angularly dependent gain-phase error coefficient”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud with the radar system self-calibration of Guo because self-calibration is necessary for achieving high-resolution performance (see Guo, p. 1515, para. 3), and the structure of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud is appropriate for using the techniques of Guo to perform self-calibration.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakobyan in view of Chabaud and further in view of Guo, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Shollenberger.
Regarding claim 25, Hakobyan in view of Chabaud and further in view of Guo teaches the radar system according to claim 23. Hakobyan as previously combined with Chabaud and Guo does not teach,
…wherein the third radar sensor is disposed such that it is rotated relative to a plane between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor.
Shollenberger teaches,
…wherein the third radar sensor is disposed such that it is rotated relative to a plane between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor (fig. 6, third radar 616 is rotated relative to a plane between first radar 608 and second radar 610).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar system of Hakobyan in view of Chabaud and further in view of Guo with the rotation of Shollenberger because the rotated radar device of increases angular resolution and makes efficient use of available space on a vehicle.
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 Anna K Benjamin Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, 7-3 Eastern; Friday 8-4 Eastern.
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 at (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 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.
/Anna K. Benjamin Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights