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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner will exam claims 7 and 15 over prior art after clarification.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “two adjacent radiating unit” in line 5. It appears that “unit” should be “units”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities: “preset maximum calibration angle” in line 1. It appears that “the” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 7 and 15 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.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitations: 1) "Lf+Lp denotes a distance between oscillators of two adjacent radiating unit of an antenna of the traffic radar" in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what Lf is. ii) it is not clear what Lp is. iii) it is not clear how “oscillators of two adjacent radiating unit of an antenna” are connected. 2) “λ denotes a wavelength of a millimeter wave in the air” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a wavelength of a millimeter wave in the air” relates to “the traffic radar”. 3) “λg denotes a wavelength of the millimeter wave on a dielectric substrate” in lines 6-7. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “a wavelength of the millimeter wave on a dielectric substrate” relates to “the traffic radar”. ii) it is not clear how the “a dielectric substrate” relates to transmissions of “the millimeter wave”. iii) it is not clear what the relationship between the “a dielectric substrate” and “the traffic radar”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 20160125667, hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park (‘667) discloses that A method for calibrating an installation error in a pitch angle of a traffic radar { Page 1 abstract line 1 (a method and a device for vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle)}, comprising:
changing frequency of the traffic radar according to a preset strategy within a preset frequency range { Fig.3 items RAZ_1, RAZ_N; Page 1 abstract line 2 (mounting angle can be corrected by using a frequency shift when a radar is mounted in a vehicle); page 4 lines 16-18 (The antenna unit 130 emits a radar transmission signal, and transmits a radar signal at a vertical orientation angle corresponding to the shifted center frequency . That is, the antenna unit 130 can radiate the radar transmission signals RAZ_1 to RAZ_N shifted)};
acquiring energy values of echo signals of a preset target at different frequencies in sequence { Fig.1 item TAR_1; Fig.2; page 3 line 27 (FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating received power according to a vertical direction angle for each frequency)}; and
in response to determining that the acquired energy values of the echo signals satisfy a preset condition, determining frequency corresponding to a maximum energy value of the echo signals as operating frequency of the traffic radar to calibrate the installation error in the pitch angle of the traffic radar { Fig.2 (see
PNG
media_image1.png
61
78
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); page 3 lines 9-10 from bottom (If the center frequency of the signal is '76.5 GHz ', the vertical steering angle X is -1 °, and the maximum received power Y is' 109.6 dB ', then a downward' It can be confirmed that 1 degree (°) 'is wrong.)};
wherein the preset target is disposed on the ground, and in a horizontal direction of the ground, a distance between the preset target and a projection point of the traffic radar in the horizontal direction is a length of a projection of a central beam of the traffic radar in the horizontal direction when the traffic radar is mounted at an expected pitch angle { Fig.1 item TAR_1}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Park (‘667) discloses that in the method,
the preset strategy comprises changing the frequency from small to large or from large to small by same { Figs.2-3; page 5 lines 20-21 (the radar signal is radiated through the experiment to 76.0 GHz (540), 76.5 GHz (542), 77.0 GHz (544), 77.5 GHz (546), and 78.0 GHz)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Park (‘667) discloses that in the method,
the preset condition comprises the acquired energy values of the echo signals changing from small to large and then from large to small { Fig.2}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Park (‘667) discloses that in the method,
the preset frequency range is determined according to a preset maximum calibration angle and a preset minimum calibration angle of the traffic radar { Fig.5a-b; Page 3 lines 1-3 from bottom (a matching table that associates the vertical direction angles with the frequency values of one or more radar signals. For example, when the target object is located on the same straight line as the antenna unit 130, when the frequency value of the radar signal is 77.0 GHz and the vertical); page 4 lines 1-2 (directivity angle is 0, the frequency 76.5 GHz is 0.5 deg. -0.5 °), the frequency 76.0 GHz is 0.5 ° (0.5 °) upward, the frequency 77.5 GHz is 1.5 ° (-1.5 °), and the frequency 78.0 GHz is 2 ° (-2 °).)}.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 16. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 16, shown below.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 1 and 5, Park (‘667) discloses that in the method,
preset maximum calibration angle is a positive angle value { Fig.5a item 540},
the preset minimum calibration angle is a negative angle value { Fig.5a item 548}, and
the absolute values of the preset maximum calibration angle and the preset minimum calibration angle are the same { Fig.5a }.
(Examiner’s note: flat is interpreted as 0).
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 1 and 5, Park (‘667) discloses that in the method,
preset maximum calibration angle is a positive angle value { Fig.5b item 540},
the preset minimum calibration angle is a negative angle value { Fig.5b item 548}, and
the absolute values of the preset maximum calibration angle and the preset minimum calibration angle are different { Fig.5b }.
(Examiner’s note: flat is interpreted as 0).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (‘667) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Treptow et al. (US 10,126,410, hereafter Treptow).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Park (‘667) does not discloses that “the expected pitch angle is determined according to an installation height and a preset detection range of the traffic radar”. In the same field of endeavor, Treptow (‘410) discloses that in the method,
the expected pitch angle is determined according to an installation height and a preset detection range of the traffic radar {Fig.3}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park (‘667) with the teachings of Treptow (‘410) {consider radar installation height and detection range in determination of elevation misalignment angle} to consider radar installation height and detection range in determination of elevation misalignment angle. Doing so would provide more accurate and more reliable automatic detection of a misaligmnent of a radar sensor in an elevation direction, as recognized by Treptow (‘410) {col.1 lines 51-53 (enabling more accurate and more reliable automatic detection of a misaligmnent of a radar sensor in an elevation direction)}.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (‘667) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Molchanov et al. (US 2016/0259037, hereafter Molchanov).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1 and 5, Park (‘667) discloses that in the method, determining the preset frequency range according to the preset maximum calibration angle and the preset minimum calibration angle of the traffic radar comprises:
determining a first wavelength when the preset maximum calibration angle is calculated
determining a second wavelength when the preset minimum calibration angle is calculated
the preset frequency range is a range from the first frequency value to the second frequency value, and the preset frequency range comprises the first frequency value and the second frequency value.
{Fig.2; Fig.3; page 5 lines 20-21 (the radar signal is radiated through the experiment to 76.0 GHz (540), 76.5 GHz (542), 77.0 GHz (544), 77.5 GHz (546), and 78.0 GHz); Examiner’s note: frequency value equivalent to wavelength value}.
However, Park (‘667) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “determining a first wavelength when the preset maximum calibration angle is calculated according to a preset equation” and “determining a second wavelength when the preset minimum calibration angle is calculated according to the preset equation”. In the same field of endeavor, Molchanov (‘037) discloses that
determining a first wavelength when the preset maximum calibration angle is calculated according to a preset equation;
determining a second wavelength when the preset minimum calibration angle is calculated according to the preset equation;
{[0053] lines 3-4 (An unambiguous angle may be defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
40
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where λ is the operating frequency of the radar, and d is the distance between centers of two receivers )}
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. unambiguous angle is defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
40
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where λ is the operating frequency of the radar, and d is the distance between centers of two receivers) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. determine unambiguous angle range based on operation frequency) and result in an improved system (e.g. only consider the operation of radar within unambiguous angle range so as to vertically correct a radar for a vehicle wherein a mounting angle can be corrected by using a frequency shift when a radar is mounted in a vehicle, as recognized by Park (‘667) {page 1 abstract lines 1-2 (vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle wherein a mounting angle can be corrected by using a frequency shift when a radar is mounted in a vehicle); page 3 lines 1-3 from bottom (The directed angle storage unit stores a matching table that associates the vertical direction angles with the frequency values of one or more radar signals. For example, when the target object is located on the same straight line as the antenna unit 130, when the frequency value of the radar signal is 77.0 GHz and the vertical); page 4 lines 1-2 (directivity angle is 0, the frequency 76.5 GHz is 0.5 deg. -0.5 °), the frequency 76.0 GHz is 0.5 ° (0.5 °) upward, the frequency 77.5 GHz is 1.5 ° (-1.5 °), and the frequency 78.0 GHz is 2 ° (-2 °).)}).
Claims 8-9, 12-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (‘667) in view of Li et al. (CN 112166336, hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 8, Park (‘667) discloses that An apparatus for calibrating an installation error in a pitch angle of a traffic radar { Page 1 abstract line 1 (a method and a device for vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle)}, comprising:
at least one processor { Fig.3 item 140 (the control unit); page 5 line 7 (the control unit 140)}; and
cause the at least one processor to perform { Page 1 abstract line 1 (a method and a device for vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle)} a method for calibrating an installation error in a pitch angle of a traffic radar,
wherein the method comprises:
changing frequency of the traffic radar according to a preset strategy within a preset frequency range;
acquiring energy values of echo signals of a preset target at different frequencies in sequence; and
in response to determining that the acquired energy values of the echo signals satisfy a preset condition, determining frequency corresponding to a maximum energy value of the echo signals as operating frequency of the traffic radar to calibrate the installation error in the pitch angle of the traffic radar;
wherein the preset target is disposed on the ground, and in a horizontal direction of the ground, a distance between the preset target and a projection point of the traffic radar in the horizontal direction is a length of a projection of a central beam of the traffic radar in the horizontal direction when the traffic radar is mounted at an expected pitch angle.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
However, Park (‘667) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor”. In the same field of endeavor, Li (‘336) discloses that
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor { Fig.7 items 10 (memory), 11 (processor); Fig.8 items 23 (processor), 24 (memory); page 12 lines 18-19 (processor 10, a memory 11); page 13 lines 2-3 from bottom (processor 23, a memory 24)};
wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor {Fig.8 ; page 13 lines 11-12 from bottom (The invention further claims a vehicle control system 20, as shown in FIG. 8, the system comprises a millimeter wave radar 21 and millimeter wave radar pitching mounting angle of the calibrating device 22,), 1-4 from bottom (The millimeter-wave radar horizontal installation error calibration device 22 comprises: processor 23; a memory 24 for storing processor-executable instructions; wherein the processor 23 is configured to:); page 14 lines 3-4 (determining the pitch angle of the specific target object within the specified time. determining the pitching mounting error value of the millimetre wave radar), 6 (correcting, the pitch installation error value)};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park (‘667) with the teachings of Li (‘336) {use memory stores instructions that are executable by processor for radar installation error calibration device} to use memory stores instructions that are executable by processor for radar installation error calibration device. Doing so would instruct a processor to determining pitching mounting error value of the millimetre wave radar so as to correct radar according to the pitch installation error value, as recognized by Li (‘336) { page 14 lines 3-4 (determining the pitch angle of the specific target object within the specified time. determining the pitching mounting error value of the millimetre wave radar), 6 (correcting, the pitch installation error value)}.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claims 12-13, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 4-5, respectively. Accordingly, claims 12-13 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 4-5, respectively, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 8, the combination of Park (‘667) and Li (‘336) discloses that in the apparatus,
the traffic radar is mounted at a preset downtilt angle before the frequency of the traffic radar is changed {see Park (‘667) Fig.5b },
the preset downtilt angle not exceeds a designed maximum calibration angle {see Park (‘667) Fig.5a-b; page 6 lines 5-7 (FIG. 5A is a view showing an example of a center frequency of a radar according to an embodiment of the present invention in a state where the vertical orientation angle is normal, FIG. 5B is a diagram illustrating a center frequency of a radar vertical alignment angle of the radar), 26-29 (For example, when the reference center frequency and the vertical orientation angle of the frequency at which the object is detected differ by 3.5 degrees, it is manually corrected by the operator for 3 degrees, which is larger than the first angle (1 DEG) Is corrected by a motor for the remaining 0.5 degrees less than the first angle or adjusted by adjusting the frequency value corresponding to the vertical direction angle.); Examiner’s note: 3.5 degree and 1 deg can be considered as “a designed maximum calibration angle”}.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘336) in view of Park (‘667).
Regarding claim 10, Li (‘336) discloses that A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is configured to store a computer program for performing the method for calibrating an installation error in a pitch angle of a traffic radar of claim 1 {see the rejections of claim 1} when the computer program is executed by a processor { Fig.7 items 10 (memory), 11 (processor); Fig.8 ; page 12 lines 18-19 (processor 10, a memory 11); page 13 lines 11-12 from bottom (The invention further claims a vehicle control system 20, as shown in FIG. 8, the system comprises a millimeter wave radar 21 and millimeter wave radar pitching mounting angle of the calibrating device 22,), 1-4 from bottom (The millimeter-wave radar horizontal installation error calibration device 22 comprises: processor 23; a memory 24 for storing processor-executable instructions; wherein the processor 23 is configured to:); page 14 lines 3-4 (determining the pitch angle of the specific target object within the specified time. determining the pitching mounting error value of the millimetre wave radar), 6 (correcting, the pitch installation error value)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li (‘336) with the teachings of Park (‘667) {calibrate an installation error in a pitch angle of a traffic radar using transmission signals having different frequencies and based on received power of reflected signals from a test target} to calibrate an installation error in a pitch angle of a traffic radar using transmission signals having different frequencies and based on received power of reflected signals from a test target. Doing so would correct a mounting angle when a radar is mounted in a vehicle by using a frequency shift so as to provide a method and a device for vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle, as recognized by Park (‘667) {Fig.1; Fig.2;Fig.3; page 1 abstract lines 1-2 (a method and a device for vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle wherein a mounting angle can be corrected by using a frequency shift when a radar is mounted in a vehicle)}.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (‘667) and Li (‘336) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Treptow (‘410)
Regarding claim 11, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (‘667) and Li (‘336) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Molchanov (‘037).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (‘667) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of He et al. (CN 112147611, hereafter He).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claims 1 and 17, Park (‘667) does not explicitly disclose “the downtilt angle is equal to 5°”. In the same field of endeavor, He (‘611) discloses that in the method,
the downtilt angle is equal to 5° {Page 3 lines 27-29 (The mounting angle can be adjusted as follows, the pitching fine adjustment +/- 5 degrees.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park (‘667) with the teachings of He (‘611) {use pitching fine adjustment +/- 5 degrees } to use pitching fine adjustment +/- 5 degrees. Doing so would obtain higher measuring precision so as to satisfy the detection requirement, as recognized by He (‘611) {page 1 abstract line 5 (satisfying the detection requirement); page 3 lines 8-9 (obtain higher measuring precision)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111751796 discloses that “the expected pitch angle is determined according to an installation height and a preset detection range of the traffic radar” {page 4 lines 1-3 (Pitch angle
PNG
media_image3.png
62
135
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, H is the installation height of the radar and r is the detection target distance } , which further support the rejection of claim 3.
US 2016/0259037 discloses that “preset maximum calibration angle is a positive angle value, the preset minimum calibration angle is a negative angle value, and the absolute values of the preset maximum calibration angle and the preset minimum calibration angle are the same” {[0053] lines 3-4 (An unambiguous angle may be defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
40
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where λ is the operating frequency of the radar, and d is the distance between centers of two receivers )}, which further support the rejection of claim 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648