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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB 2111661.1, filed on 08/13/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 196 words in length which exceeds the limit of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 35: “output means configured to output an indication”
Claim 36: “output means to output the indication”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27, 32, 34-36, 39-40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 27 and 44, The term “substantially similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of this relative term makes indefinite the limitations regarding the alignment determination process.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the first predetermined portion" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 30 first mentions “a first predetermined portion” with regards to the same subject matter the phrase is applied to in claim 30. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the “first predetermined portion” of both claims to reference the same limitation.
Claim 34 and 36 both recite the limitation “a predetermined time” from the context of each claim, it appears that the applicant intends to claim different predetermined times. Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation to be imposed on the invention.
Claims 39 and 40 recite the limitation “number of channels of the radar sensor”. The language is not clear in general and the specification is not found to clarify the meaning. Rather, the feature is mentioned only by repeating the language of the claim. Are the indicated channels azimuth ranges, frequency ranges, antennas in an array, or something else? The illustration does not clarify the meaning. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the “channels of the radar sensor” to include azimuth ranges, frequency ranges, antennas in an array since those are commonly used meanings in the art.
Regarding Claims 35 and 36, the claim limitation “output means to output an (the) indication” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “output means” are illustrated in Figure 1 as a box with no further structure. In the specification, the “output means” is defined by describing what it does not by reciting what it is or its structure (Page 7, lines 13-17; For example, the output means 130 may output a control signal 135 to a communications bus of a vehicle indicative of a determination that the radar sensor 160 is misaligned. One or more further control systems or processing units communicatively coupled to the communication bus of the vehicle may control various functions of the vehicle in response to receiving the output control signal 135 from the output means 130. The output means 130 may further comprise a display or audible output means for outputting a visual or audio output to a user.).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As shown above, the “output means to output an (the) indication” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the disclosure not does not provide adequate structure for performing the function. In the specification, the “output means” is defined by describing what it does not by reciting what it is or its structure and is illustrated using a box in Figure 1 (Page 7, lines 13-17; For example, the output means 130 may output a control signal 135 to a communications bus of a vehicle indicative of a determination that the radar sensor 160 is misaligned. One or more further control systems or processing units communicatively coupled to the communication bus of the vehicle may control various functions of the vehicle in response to receiving the output control signal 135 from the output means 130. The output means 130 may further comprise a display or audible output means for outputting a visual or audio output to a user.).
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (MPEP 2181(IV))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 26-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 26-41 recite a system, device with system and method of alignment of a radar for use with a vehicular radar system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to software per se, see MPEP 2106.03.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 26 (and its dependents) recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 42 recites a recites a vehicle. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 43 and 44 recites a method. Thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 45 recites software to perform the method of 43 without reciting any additional structure. Thus, the claim is directed to software per se which is excluded from the statutory categories of invention, see MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claim 26 and similarly claims 42 and 43, recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mathematical concepts and mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
perform a first alignment determination process to determine alignment of a field of view of the radar sensor and a longitudinal axis of the vehicle in dependence on the received radar data;
determine a relative speed with respect to the vehicle of each of the one or more detected objects;
compare the relative speed of each of the one or more detected objects to an associated speed of the vehicle; and
perform a second alignment determination process to determine the alignment of the radar sensor in dependence on the comparison.
The step of “perform a first alignment determination process to determine alignment” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. radar data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The step of “determine a relative speed with respect to the vehicle of each of the one or more detected objects” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. doppler data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The step of “compare the relative speed of each of the one or more detected objects to an associated speed of the vehicle” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. radar data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The step of “perform a second alignment determination process to determine the alignment of the radar sensor in dependence on the comparison” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. radar data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
In addition, dependent claims 27-41 and 44 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process.
Regarding claim 27-32, 34, 37-39 and 44, the process may be practically performed in the human mind using different evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 27-41 and 44 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional elements of claim 26 are “receive radar data from the radar sensor indicative of one or more detections of objects in an environment of the vehicle” and “wherein the one or more detections of objects used for the comparison include at least one detection having an associated quality measurement below a threshold quality; and wherein the at least one detection having an associated quality measurement below the threshold quality is only used for the second alignment determination process.”. Such elements, at a high-level of generality, merely recite data gathering by receiving radar to be analyzed. As such, such steps are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, claim 45 recited the method as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 33 discloses “the predetermined distance is based on the associated speed of the vehicle”. Claims 35 and 36 discloses “the control system comprises output means configured to output an indication of misalignment of the radar sensor in dependence on the second alignment determination process.” but does not disclose what is receiving the output. Claim 4 discloses “an output control section that controls output of predetermined physical quantities to the object.”. Claim 40 discloses “the predetermined number of channels is based on a ratio of a number of the plurality of channels of the radar sensor.”. Claim 41 discloses wherein the second alignment determination process is performed when the first alignment determination process determines that the radar sensor is misaligned, or when the radar data comprises insufficient detections having associated quality measurements above the threshold quality for performing the first alignment determination process”. These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claims 26-44 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims are directed to an alignment determination with no discernable output. If alignment is off, is the radar physically moved and/or provide an azimuth offset correction?
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 26-28, 35-36 and 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ameen (US Patent Num. 5977906).
Regarding claims 26 and 42, Ameen discloses a vehicle comprising a control system (Page. 10, col. 2, lines 47-48; As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, a collision avoidance vehicular radar system 100 is mounted on a host vehicle 12), and a radar sensor arranged to provide radar data indicative of one or more detections of objects in an environment of the vehicle to the control system a control system for use with a vehicle having a radar sensor, the control system comprising one or more controller (Page 20, col. 22, lines 42-47; As described above, the radar system 100 preferably includes an antenna 10 and a microprocessor or micro-controller 11. The boresight calibration techniques described above with reference to FIGS. 1-7 preferably comprise software instructions that are executed by the microprocessor 11 in the radar system 100.), the control system being configured to:
receive radar data from the radar sensor indicative of one or more detections of objects in an environment of the vehicle (Page 11, col. 3, lines 8-18; The radar antenna 10 locates "target" vehicles (e.g., vehicles 40 and 50) in a well-known manner by transmitting a transmission signal (radar beam) having a known frequency and sensing the transmission signal as reflected back from the target vehicles. For example, when the radar system 100 comprises a monopulse azimuth radar system (such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,402,129), the antenna 10 transmits a transmission signal and then senses the transmission signal reflected back from the target vehicles in two different physically separated locations of the antenna 10);
perform a first alignment determination process to determine alignment of a field of view of the radar sensor and a longitudinal axis of the vehicle in dependence on the received radar data (Page 15, col. 12, lines 34-37; At STEP 204 the first azimuth boresight calibration technique calculates the boresight offset angle .alpha. using the method set forth in Equation 1 described above. Page 15, col. 11, lines 61-66; The first azimuth boresight calibration technique of the present invention uses Equation 1 to calculate the boresight offset angle .alpha. 26. This calibration technique preferably executes on any radar system that locates target positions by obtaining a target boresight azimuth angle and target range for each target vehicle.);
determine a relative speed with respect to the vehicle of each of the one or more detected objects (Page 11, col. 3, lines 29-35; The radar system 100 also determines the range and closing rate (velocity relative to the host vehicle 12) of a selected target vehicle in a well-known manner. For example, a target's range can be determined in one embodiment by measuring phase differences in Doppler channel frequencies derived from the transmission signals reflected back from the target and received by the radar antenna 10.);
compare the relative speed of each of the one or more detected objects to an associated speed of the vehicle (Page 16, col. 14, lines 60-66; The second calibration technique of the present azimuth boresight calibration method relies upon the simple observation that of all of the targets having non-zero velocities relative to the host vehicle 12 (FIG. 3), only the one directly in line with the host vehicle's direction of travel 22 will experience insignificant target azimuth angle changes when measured at successive time instances.); and
perform a second alignment determination process to determine the alignment of the radar sensor in dependence on the comparison (Page 15, col. 12, line 64 to Page 16, col. 13, line 5; If the boresight offset angle .alpha. calculated at STEP 204 is determined at STEP 208 to be less than or equal to the predetermined boresight offset threshold value Offset.sub.th, the method proceeds to calibrate the antenna boresight at STEP 210. As described above, many approaches are possible for calibrating the antenna boresight, including but not limited to physically moving the antenna 10 the amount required to compensate for the boresight offset angle.);
wherein the one or more detections of objects used for the comparison include at least one detection having an associated quality measurement below a threshold quality (Page 12, col. 6, lines 39-44; A modification of the second technique requires that the radar system obtain more than one successive target data measurement for the qualified calibration target. To qualify at each successive time instant, the vehicle range, signal magnitude, and velocity must satisfy pre-determined threshold values); and wherein the at least one detection having an associated quality measurement below the threshold quality is only used for the second alignment determination process (Page 19, col. 19, lines 5-15 for the quality thresholds.).
Regarding claims 27-28, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 26, wherein the second alignment determination process comprises determining that the radar sensor is aligned when at least a proportion of the one or more detected objects have respective relative speeds substantially similar to the associated speed of the vehicle (Page 20, col. 21, lines 2-6; In either case, relative vehicle speed can be used as a means for suppressing adjacent vehicles from being erroneously qualified as calibration targets. By requiring a calibration target to have a velocity that is somewhat similar to that of the host vehicle, a significant number of adjacent lane vehicles are suppressed from becoming qualified for calibration purposes.) and wherein, to compare the relative speed of each of the one or more detected objects to the associated speed of the vehicle, the control system is configured to: determine the associated speed of the vehicle as a speed of the vehicle at a time each of the one or more objects were detected; and determine whether the relative speed of each of the one or more detected objects is within a speed window, wherein the speed window is determined in dependence on the associated speed of the vehicle (Page 19, col. 19, line13; target relative speed to host < 12% host vehicle speed).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 26, wherein the control system comprises output means configured to output an indication of misalignment of the radar sensor in dependence on the second alignment determination process (Fig. 4, Step 214, Indicate Misalignment Error Requiring Physical Remedial Action); wherein the control system is configured to: control the output means to output the indication after a predetermined time has elapsed following the determination that the radar sensor is misaligned (Fig. 7 Step 514); or update a counter based on the associated vehicle speed, and output the indication when the counter reaches a predetermined number; wherein, when it is determined according to the second alignment determination process that the radar sensor is aligned, the control system is configured to reset the counter (Fig. 7 Steps 508 and 510).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 26, accordingly the rejection of claim 26 above is incorporated. Ameen further discloses wherein the control system is configured to: determine a number of channels of the radar sensor which detect an object among a plurality of channels of the radar sensor; trigger the determination of detected object relative speed, the comparison of the detected object relative speed to the associated vehicle speed, and the second alignment determination process when the number of channels of the radar sensor which detect objects is less than a predetermined number of channels; and suspend the determination of the detected object relative speed, the comparison of the detected object relative speed to the associated vehicle speed, and the second alignment determination process when the number of channels of the radar sensor which detect objects is equal to or greater than a predetermined number of channels wherein the predetermined number of channels is based on a ratio of a number of the plurality of channels of the radar sensor (Figure 7 and Page 18, col. 18, lines 29-38; In one preferred embodiment, an azimuth histogram is created for qualified targets for a given set of discrete azimuth angles. As target data is received, a count is added to each discrete azimuth angle in the histogram for qualified targets until a pre-determined maximum histogram count is reached. In the preferred embodiment, the pre-determined maximum histogram count is 4,096. When the pre-determined maximum histogram count is reached, the boresight misalignment angle is determined from the azimuth angle having the greatest number of counts.).
Regarding claim 41, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 26, wherein the second alignment determination process is performed when the first alignment determination process determines that the radar sensor is misaligned, or when the radar data comprises insufficient detections having associated quality measurements above the threshold quality for performing the first alignment determination process (Fig. 4, Step 208; Page 15, col. 12, lines 52-55; At STEP 208, the present method checks to determine whether the boresight offset angle .alpha. calculated at STEP 204 is greater than a predetermined boresight offset threshold value).
Regarding claims 43-45, Ameen discloses a method for determining alignment of a radar system of a vehicle and computer software which, when executed by a computer (Page 13. col. 8, lines 56-59; The method of the present invention preferably comprises software or firmware instructions that are executed by the microprocessor 11 or other data processing or sequencing device disposed within the radar system 100.), the method comprises:
receiving radar data from the radar sensor indicative of one or more detections of objects in an environment of the vehicle (Page 11, col. 3, lines 8-18; The radar antenna 10 locates "target" vehicles (e.g., vehicles 40 and 50) in a well-known manner by transmitting a transmission signal (radar beam) having a known frequency and sensing the transmission signal as reflected back from the target vehicles. For example, when the radar system 100 comprises a monopulse azimuth radar system (such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,402,129), the antenna 10 transmits a transmission signal and then senses the transmission signal reflected back from the target vehicles in two different physically separated locations of the antenna 10);
performing a first alignment determination process to determine alignment of a field of view of the radar sensor and a longitudinal axis of the vehicle in dependence on the received radar data (Page 15, col. 12, lines 34-37; At STEP 204 the first azimuth boresight calibration technique calculates the boresight offset angle .alpha. using the method set forth in Equation 1 described above. Page 15, col. 11, lines 61-66; The first azimuth boresight calibration technique of the present invention uses Equation 1 to calculate the boresight offset angle .alpha. 26. This calibration technique preferably executes on any radar system that locates target positions by obtaining a target boresight azimuth angle and target range for each target vehicle.);
determining a relative speed with respect to the vehicle of each of the one or more detected objects (Page 11, col. 3, lines 29-35; The radar system 100 also determines the range and closing rate (velocity relative to the host vehicle 12) of a selected target vehicle in a well-known manner. For example, a target's range can be determined in one embodiment by measuring phase differences in Doppler channel frequencies derived from the transmission signals reflected back from the target and received by the radar antenna 10.);
comparing the relative speed of each of the one or more detected objects to an associated speed of the vehicle (Page 16, col. 14, lines 60-66; The second calibration technique of the present azimuth boresight calibration method relies upon the simple observation that of all of the targets having non-zero velocities relative to the host vehicle 12 (FIG. 3), only the one directly in line with the host vehicle's direction of travel 22 will experience insignificant target azimuth angle changes when measured at successive time instances.); and
performing a second alignment determination process to determine the alignment of the radar sensor in dependence on the comparison (Page 15, col. 12, line 64 to Page 16, col. 13, line 5; If the boresight offset angle .alpha. calculated at STEP 204 is determined at STEP 208 to be less than or equal to the predetermined boresight offset threshold value Offset.sub.th, the method proceeds to calibrate the antenna boresight at STEP 210. As described above, many approaches are possible for calibrating the antenna boresight, including but not limited to physically moving the antenna 10 the amount required to compensate for the boresight offset angle.);
wherein the one or more detections of objects used for the comparison include at least one detection having an associated quality measurement below a threshold quality (Page 12, col. 6, lines 39-44; A modification of the second technique requires that the radar system obtain more than one successive target data measurement for the qualified calibration target. To qualify at each successive time instant, the vehicle range, signal magnitude, and velocity must satisfy pre-determined threshold values); wherein the at least one detection having an associated quality measurement below the threshold quality is only used for the second alignment determination process (Page 19, col. 19, lines 5-15 for the quality thresholds.); and wherein the second alignment determination process comprises determining that the radar sensor is aligned when at least a proportion of the one or more detected objects have relative speeds substantially similar to the associated speed of the vehicle (Page 20, col. 21, lines 2-26; In either case, relative vehicle speed can be used as a means for suppressing adjacent vehicles from being erroneously qualified as calibration targets. By requiring a calibration target to have a velocity that is somewhat similar to that of the host vehicle, a significant number of adjacent lane vehicles are suppressed from becoming qualified for calibration purposes.).
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.
Claim(s) 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ameen.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 28, accordingly the rejection of claim 28 above is incorporated. wherein the control system is configured to: determine a proportion of detections having a relative speed within the speed window compared to a total number of the one or more detections (Figure 7, Page 19, col. 19, line13; target relative speed to host < 12% host vehicle speed); wherein the second alignment determination process comprises determining that the radar sensor is aligned when the determined proportion of detections having a relative speed within the speed window is greater than or equal to the first predetermined proportion (Page 19, col. 19, line 26-35; However, if the azimuth angle data is qualified, the method proceeds to STEP 508 and increments the count of the bin that corresponds to the qualified azimuth angle. The method proceeds to STEP 510 whereat the method determines whether the histogram contains a pre-determined maximum number of counts referred to as "MaxCounts." In one preferred embodiment, MaxCounts equals 4,096 counts. If the histogram does not contain the maximum number of counts, the method proceeds to obtain a new target azimuth reading at STEP 516.).
Ameen discloses the claimed invention except for the second alignment determination process comprises determining that the radar sensor is misaligned when the determined proportion of detections having a relative speed within the speed window is less than a first predetermined proportion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that the radar sensor is misaligned when the determined proportion of detections having a relative speed within the speed window is less than a first predetermined proportion, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 31, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 26, accordingly the rejection of claim 26 above is incorporated. Ameen further teaches wherein the control system is configured to: determine a distance between the vehicle and each of the one or more detected objects (Page 11, col. 3, lines 39-44; The radar system 100 preferably determines the location of a target vehicle 40 relative to the antenna 10 by calculating both a range value ("R") 16 and an azimuth angle of the target vehicle 40. The range R 16 to the target vehicle 40 is defined as the distance from the center of the radar antenna 10 to the target vehicle 40.); and determine a proportion of detections of objects more than a predetermined distance away from the vehicle compared to the total number of the one or more detections (Page 12, col. 6, lines 39-44; (30) A modification of the second technique requires that the radar system obtain more than one successive target data measurement for the qualified calibration target. To qualify at each successive time instant, the vehicle range, signal magnitude, and velocity must satisfy pre-determined threshold values).
Ameen discloses the claimed invention except for the second alignment determination process comprises determining that the radar sensor is misaligned when the determined proportion of detections of objects more than a predetermined distance away from the vehicle is less than a second predetermined proportion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determining that the radar sensor is misaligned when the determined proportion of detections of objects more than a predetermined distance away from the vehicle is less than a second predetermined proportion, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 32, Ameen teaches the control system of claim 31, accordingly the rejection of claim 31 above is incorporated. wherein the second alignment determination process comprises: determining that the radar sensor is aligned when the determined proportion of detections having a relative speed within the speed window is greater than or equal to the first predetermined proportion, and the determined proportion of detections of objects more than a predetermined distance away from the vehicle is greater than or equal to the second predetermined proportion (Page 16, col. 13, lines 30-35; In one preferred embodiment, the method measures six successive range and target azimuth values at six successive time instances. Equations 2 and 3 show how this modified calibration technique calculates the boresight offset angle .alpha. using this modification of the first azimuth boresight calibration technique of the present invention).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Ameen teaches the control system of claim 31, accordingly the rejection of claim 31 above is incorporated. Ameen further teaches wherein the predetermined distance is based on the associated speed of the vehicle (Page 16, col. 14, lines 9-10; The target tracking period will vary with the target's closing velocity.) and the predetermined distance is determined as a distance travelled by the vehicle at the associated speed of the vehicle in a predetermined time (Page 17, col. 16, lines 1-6; To qualify, a target preferably has the range, relative velocity and signal magnitude values described above. The present method is opportunistic because many targets can be continuously monitored to find a target that meets the requirements of having a non-zero relative velocity and is within pre-determined detection range for pre-determined period of time.).
Claim(s) 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ameen in view of Lee (US 20210349183).
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Ameen discloses the control system of claim 26, accordingly the rejection of claim 26 above is incorporated. Ameen further teaches to trigger the determination of relative speed of the detected objects, the comparison of the detected object relative speed to the associated vehicle speed, and the second alignment determination process when it is determined that the vehicle is not in the off-road environment; and to suspend the determination of detected object relative speed, the comparison of the detected object relative speed to the associated vehicle speed, and the second alignment determination process when it is determined that the vehicle is in the off-road environment (Page 19, col. 20, lines 10-16; In contrast, the structured relationship between vehicles does not hold in "off-road" environments. In "off-road" environments, there may not be any roads or travel lanes to superimpose a known structure on the distribution of "off-road" vehicles or radar targets. Hence, the QAH calibration technique is not valid and therefore should not be used in "off-road" vehicle environments.). Ameen fails to disclose the control system is configured to: determine whether the vehicle is in an off-road environment wherein the control system is configured to determine a gradient of the ground in a current location of the vehicle, and to determine that the vehicle is in the off-road environment when the determined gradient is greater than a predetermined threshold gradient.
However, Lee teaches a device and method for detecting and correcting vehicle radar misalignment (Abstract: The present disclosure relates to a device and method for detecting vertical misalignment of a vehicle radar device and vehicle radar device with the same. A radar device according to an embodiment determines a monitoring range including the ground in front by using the radar signal, determines an error of vertical angles for a number of ground distances within the monitoring range, and detects the vertical mounting misalignment of the radar device by using the error) where teach the control system is configured to: determine whether the vehicle is in an off-road environment wherein the control system is configured to determine a gradient of the ground in a current location of the vehicle, and to determine that the vehicle is in the off-road environment when the determined gradient is greater than a predetermined threshold gradient ([0164] For example, if the allowable range of the estimation error is 0.2 degrees, and the measured estimation error is 0.3 degrees or more, the corresponding estimation error is excluded from the determination target for the vertical misalignment determination).
Ameen and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vehicle radar alignment technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Ameen by including the off-road detection techniques of Lee to yield a predictable result of preventing the system from performing an alignment check and adjustment with bad data ([0064] However, due to the slope of the road corresponding to the ground, the non-uniformity of the road surface in front of the vehicle, and the non-uniformity of the radar beam width, it may not be possible to accurately determine the vertical mounting misalignment by simply comparing the distance to the front ground (road) and the vertical angle of the ground with a reference value).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160161597 discloses a method for identifying an elevation misalignment angle of a radar sensor of a vehicle, including: identifying elevation angles of radar objects with reference to a coordinate system of the radar sensor, an elevation angle of a radar object is identified based on radar echoes that are obtained with at least two antenna directional characteristics that differ in an elevation direction; and identifying an elevation misalignment angle based on an occurrence frequency distribution of the elevation angles of at least some of the radar object localizations; and a radar sensor for vehicles having an evaluation device embodied to carry out the method.
US 20170261599 discloses a method and sensor system for automatically determining object sensor position and alignment on a host vehicle. A radar sensor detects objects surrounding the host vehicle in normal operation. Static objects are identified as those objects with ground speed approximately equal to zero. Vehicle dynamics sensors provide vehicle longitudinal and lateral velocity and yaw rate data. Measurement data for the static objects—including azimuth angle, range and range rate relative to the sensor—along with the vehicle dynamics data, are used in a recursive geometric calculation which converges on actual values of the radar sensor's two-dimensional position and azimuth alignment angle on the host vehicle.
US 20200003868 discloses a method of determining an alignment error of an antenna installed on a vehicle and in cooperation with a detection device, and the detection device is configured to determine a plurality of detections. Determining the plurality of detections comprises emitting a first portion of electromagnetic radiation through the antenna, receiving a second portion of electromagnetic radiation through the antenna, and evaluating the second portion of electromagnetic radiation in dependence of the first portion of electromagnetic radiation in order to localize areas of reflection of the first portion of electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity of the antenna. The method comprises determining a first detection and at least a second detection by using the detection device and determining the alignment error by means of a joint evaluation of the first detection and the second detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646