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
The amendment filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 remains pending in this application. Claim 2 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments; however, an additional prior art rejection is presented below.
The Examiner notes Sakamaki paragraph [0063] “The sensor data 202 can include radar returns representing observed measurements, such as location parameters (e.g., range, angle, velocity, position, etc.)”. Sakamaki therefore discloses determination of which observed and tracked angle is selected. The additional teachings of Christopher as detailed in the rejection below further describe the criteria sued for plausibility measurement in regards to a fused track and variant.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “originate from the same object”. The Examiner notes that “originate from a same object” would better conform to common US patent claim structure.
Claim 2 recites “different variants in order to resolve the angle ambiguities”. The Examiner notes that “different variants in order to resolve .
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the variant" twice in the newly amended element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “different variants” and “each variant”, it is therefore unclear to the Examiner which variants are being referenced in the amended limitation. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the variant” as a variant of the each variant(s) with a respective plausibility measurement. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamaki (US 20200312156 A1), hereinafter Sakamaki, in view of Christopher (US 20130093617 A1), hereinafter Christopher.
Regarding claim 2, Sakamaki, as shown below, discloses a method for resolving angle ambiguities in a spatially incoherent radar network, comprising (The Examiner notes that spatially incoherent radar networks as claimed merely recite an intended use that does not result in a structural/manipulative difference. See MPEP 2111.02 regarding effect of preamble.) comprising the following limitations:
a surrounding area is scanned by multiple radar sensors (See at least Fig. 1A, [0026] “the first and second sensors may be the same type of sensor, such as a radar sensor”),
for each radar sensor, individually and independently of the respective other radar sensors, tracks of detected objects are generated in a state space (See at least Fig. 3, Items 102-104, 316-318, [0082] “Once the track information in the sensor outputs 312 and 314 have been propagated, the IMMFs 114A and 114N can output time aligned tracks 316 and 318”),
tracks of different radar sensors are assigned to each other with the proviso that the tracks plausibly originate from the same object (See at least [0082] “The track fusion system 302 can then use the time aligned tracks 316 and 318 to perform track association 308 to associate those tracks (e.g., state estimates and error covariances) from the IMMFs 114A-N that are determined to match or represent a same target object.”),
the tracks assigned to each other are fused for different variants in order to resolve the angle ambiguities (See at least [0082] “By ensuring that the track information from the various sensors (102, 104, etc.) are time aligned, the track fusion system 302 can more accurately identify which tracks from the sensors represent a same target object. This allows the track fusion system 302 to fuse the correct tracks”),
a respective plausibility measurement is assigned to each variant (See at least Figs. 2-3, [0065] “In the measurement step, each filter (116A, 116B, 116N) can then use the sensor data 202 to calculate an accuracy or likelihood of accuracy of the output”, [0068] “In some cases, the fusion engine 218 can compare and/or combine the state and covariance values associated with the filters 116A, 116B, 116N to determine a state and covariance that best represents the motion of the target object 130 (e.g., the most accurate state and covariance and/or the state and covariance with the highest estimated likelihood of being accurate)”), and
the variant with the highest plausibility is selected in order to resolve the angle ambiguities. (See at least [0068] “In some cases, the fusion engine 218 can compare and/or combine the state and covariance values associated with the filters 116A, 116B, 116N to determine a state and covariance that best represents the motion of the target object 130 (e.g., the most accurate state and covariance and/or the state and covariance with the highest estimated likelihood of being accurate)”).
Sakamaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the respective plausibility measurement is determined based on how well the tracks associated with the variant agree with a fused track generated for the variant. However, Christopher, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
wherein the respective plausibility measurement is determined based on how well the tracks associated with the variant agree with a fused track generated for the variant (See at least [0023] “the goodness of fit between the measurements and the track predictions is used to score the branch tracks that are formed by updating a prior track with a new measurement. […] This will be reflected in the track scores that will later be converted to probabilities”, [0025] “Thus, track probabilities will be determined by the quality of the hypotheses that contain them so that the track's are, in effect, competing to be in the best (highest probability) hypotheses.” The Examiner notes that variant is an analogous term to ‘hypothesis’.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the angle ambiguity resolution system disclosed by Sakamaki with the plausibility system disclosed by Christopher. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar ambiguity resolution (See at least [0004] “improved methods for resolving radar ambiguities are needed”).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights