DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are 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 the claim(s) are directed towards “A program causing a computer to function as”.
The claim(s) should be amended to read
‘A non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: …’.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
store a radio wave interference model for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment;
select the radio wave interference model stored in the storage unit on a basis of a simulation scenario;
and
a radar model
configured to
generate output data representing a result of perception of an object with the radar device on a basis of the radio wave interference model selected by the selection unit
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 14 recites
store a radio wave interference model for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment,
selecting the radio wave interference model stored in the storage unit on a basis of a simulation scenario;
and
generating output data representing a result of perception of an object with the radar device on a basis of the radio wave interference model selected
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 15 recites
store a radio wave interference model for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment;
select the radio wave interference model stored in the storage unit on a basis of a simulation scenario;
and
a radar model
configured to
generate output data representing a result of perception of an object with the radar device on a basis of the radio wave interference model selected by the selection unit
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 2-13 recite(s)
the radar model
generates a mixed signal for the radar device by mixing a reception wave based on the radio wave interference model and a transmission wave from the radar device,
and
outputs the mixed signal as the output data representing the result of perception of the object with the radar device.
the radar model
generates an intermediate frequency (IF) signal for the millimeter-wave radar by mixing a reception wave including a millimeter-wave signal based on the radio wave interference model and a transmission wave including a millimeter-wave signal from the radar device,
and
outputs the IF signal as output data representing a result of perception of an object with the millimeter-wave radar.
a rendering model
configured to
simulate, as the radio wave interference model, data on a reception wave including an electromagnetic wave propagating from a surrounding space to the radar device in a virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario.
stores the radio wave interference model simulated by the rendering model in association with the simulation scenario.
when the radio wave interference model stored in the storage unit can be retrieved on a basis of the simulation scenario,
selects the radio wave interference model stored in association with the simulation scenario,
and
when the radio wave interference model corresponding to the simulation scenario cannot be retrieved,
the rendering model
simulates, as the radio wave interference model, the reception wave including the electromagnetic wave propagating from the surrounding space to the radar device in the virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario,
and
stores the radio wave interference model that has been simulated in association with the simulation scenario.
the radio wave interference model includes data on
a reception wave
when, in a virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario,
a reflected wave corresponding to a transmission wave of the radar device reflected off a preceding vehicle to be measured running ahead of the vehicle is received,
and
a transmission wave from another radar device mounted on another vehicle different from the vehicle and the preceding vehicle,
the another radar device being different from the radar device, is received.
the radio wave interference model includes data on
a reception wave
when, in the virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario,
the reflected wave corresponding to the transmission wave of the radar device reflected off the preceding vehicle is received,
and
a transmission wave from the another radar device mounted on an oncoming vehicle with respect to the vehicle is directly received.
the radio wave interference model includes data on
a reception wave
when, in the virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario,
the reflected wave corresponding to the transmission wave of the radar device reflected off the preceding vehicle is received,
and
a transmission wave from the another radar device mounted on an oncoming vehicle with respect to the vehicle is indirectly received.
the radio wave interference model includes data on
a reception wave
when, in a case where the virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario is inside of a tunnel,
the reflected wave corresponding to the transmission wave of the radar device reflected off the preceding vehicle is received,
the transmission wave from the another radar device mounted on the oncoming vehicle with respect to the vehicle is directly received, and
a reflected wave generated when the transmission wave from the another radar device is reflected off a wall of the tunnel is indirectly received.
the simulation scenario includes
information indicating that a modulation method applied to the transmission wave from the radar device is different from a modulation method applied to the transmission wave from the another radar device.
information indicating that a modulation method applied to the transmission wave from the radar device is the same as a modulation method applied to the transmission wave from the another radar device.
the simulation scenario includes
information indicating that the transmission wave from the radar device is modulated and the transmission wave from the another radar device is not modulated
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. An information processing device comprising: a storage unit configured to; a selection unit configured to; a radar model configured to; A program causing a computer to function as:);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data acquisition/storage/output); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment; the radar device includes a millimeter-wave radar).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAFIRA ET AL. (US 20220058309 A1) (hereinafter “SAFIRA”) in view of KISHIGAMI ET AL. (US 20160238694 A1) (hereinafter “KISHIGAMI”), HAGHIGHI ET AL. (US 20170115378 A1) (hereinafter “HAGHIGHI”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, SAFIRA teaches ‘enabling autonomous vehicle simulations based on retro-reflection optical data…involves initiating a simulation of an environment of an autonomous driving vehicle, the simulation including a plurality of simulated objects, each having an identification of a material type of the respective object...accessing simulated reflection data based on the plurality of simulated objects and retro-reflectivity data for the material types of the simulated objects, and determining, using an autonomous vehicle control system for the autonomous vehicle, a driving path relative to the simulated objects, the driving path based on the simulated reflection data’ and the BRI of:
An information processing device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
comprising:
a storage unit (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
configured to store
a radio wave model for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B);
the radio wave model stored in the storage unit on a basis of a simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B);
and
a radar model configured to generate output data representing a result of perception of an object with the radar device on a basis of the radio wave model (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B).
However, SAFIRA is lacking the explicit language of:
a radio wave interference model;
a selection unit configured to select the radio wave interference model
KISHIGAMI teaches radar interference detection, determination, and countermeasure and the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include a radio wave interference model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to improve radar detection. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
HAGHIGHI teaches ‘testing and evaluating a response of an automotive radar system for a specific automotive safety scenario, wherein the method and system generates a simulated reflected radar signature corresponding to at least one virtual target in a specific virtual scenario’ and the BRI of:
a selection unit configured to select the radio wave model (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include a selection unit configured to select the radio wave model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to test and evaluate a response of an automotive radar system for a specific automotive safety scenario. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 14, SAFIRA teaches ‘enabling autonomous vehicle simulations based on retro-reflection optical data…involves initiating a simulation of an environment of an autonomous driving vehicle, the simulation including a plurality of simulated objects, each having an identification of a material type of the respective object...accessing simulated reflection data based on the plurality of simulated objects and retro-reflectivity data for the material types of the simulated objects, and determining, using an autonomous vehicle control system for the autonomous vehicle, a driving path relative to the simulated objects, the driving path based on the simulated reflection data’ and the BRI of:
An information processing method (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
of
an information processing device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
including
a storage unit (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
configured to
store a radio wave model for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B),
the information processing method comprising:
the radio wave model stored in the storage unit on a basis of a simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B);
and
generating output data representing a result of perception of an object with the radar device on a basis of the radio wave model (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B).
However, SAFIRA is lacking the explicit language of:
a radio wave interference model;
selecting the radio wave interference model
KISHIGAMI teaches radar interference detection, determination, and countermeasure and the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include a radio wave interference model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to improve radar detection. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
HAGHIGHI teaches ‘testing and evaluating a response of an automotive radar system for a specific automotive safety scenario, wherein the method and system generates a simulated reflected radar signature corresponding to at least one virtual target in a specific virtual scenario’ and the BRI of:
selecting the radio wave model (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include selecting the radio wave model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to test and evaluate a response of an automotive radar system for a specific automotive safety scenario. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 15, SAFIRA teaches ‘enabling autonomous vehicle simulations based on retro-reflection optical data…involves initiating a simulation of an environment of an autonomous driving vehicle, the simulation including a plurality of simulated objects, each having an identification of a material type of the respective object...accessing simulated reflection data based on the plurality of simulated objects and retro-reflectivity data for the material types of the simulated objects, and determining, using an autonomous vehicle control system for the autonomous vehicle, a driving path relative to the simulated objects, the driving path based on the simulated reflection data’ and the BRI of:
A program (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
causing a computer to function as:
a storage unit (See, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
configured to
store a radio wave model for a radar device mounted on a vehicle in a simulation environment (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B);
the radio wave model stored in the storage unit on a basis of a simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B);
and
a radar model configured to generate output data representing a result of perception of an object with the radar device on a basis of the radio wave model (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B).
However, SAFIRA is lacking the explicit language of:
a radio wave interference model;
a selection unit configured to select the radio wave interference model
KISHIGAMI teaches radar interference detection, determination, and countermeasure and the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include a radio wave interference model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to improve radar detection. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
HAGHIGHI teaches ‘testing and evaluating a response of an automotive radar system for a specific automotive safety scenario, wherein the method and system generates a simulated reflected radar signature corresponding to at least one virtual target in a specific virtual scenario’ and the BRI of:
a selection unit configured to select the radio wave model (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include a selection unit configured to select the radio wave model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to test and evaluate a response of an automotive radar system for a specific automotive safety scenario. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, SAFIRA, KISHIGAMI, HAGHIGHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KISHIGAMI teaches the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
SAFIRA further teaches the BRI of:
the radar model
generates a mixed signal for the radar device by mixing a reception wave based on the radio wave model and a transmission wave from the radar device (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B),
and
outputs the mixed signal as the output data representing the result of perception of the object with the radar device (See, e.g., ¶ 0051, 0067-0079; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4A, 4B).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, SAFIRA, KISHIGAMI, HAGHIGHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KISHIGAMI teaches the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
HAGHIGHI further teaches the BRI of:
a rendering model (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124)
configured to
simulate, as the radio wave model, data on a reception wave including an electromagnetic wave propagating from a surrounding space to the radar device in a virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, SAFIRA, KISHIGAMI, HAGHIGHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KISHIGAMI teaches the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
HAGHIGHI further teaches the BRI of:
the storage unit
stores the radio wave model simulated by the rendering model in association with the simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, SAFIRA, KISHIGAMI, HAGHIGHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
KISHIGAMI teaches the BRI of:
a radio wave interference model (See, e.g., ¶ 0055-0070; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
HAGHIGHI further teaches the BRI of:
when the radio wave model stored in the storage unit can be retrieved on a basis of the simulation scenario, the selection unit selects the radio wave model stored in association with the simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124),
and
when the radio wave model corresponding to the simulation scenario cannot be retrieved, the rendering model simulates, as the radio wave model, the reception wave including the electromagnetic wave propagating from the surrounding space to the radar device in the virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124),
and
the storage unit stores the radio wave model that has been simulated in association with the simulation scenario (See, e.g., ¶ 0025, 0049, 0089, 0107, 0119-0124).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim(s) in view of NATSUME ET AL. (US 20060181448 A1) (hereinafter “NATSUME”).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, SAFIRA, KISHIGAMI, HAGHIGHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SAFIRA teaches the BRI of:
the radar device.
However, SAFIRA is lacking the explicit language of:
a millimeter-wave radar,
and
the radar model
generates an intermediate frequency (IF) signal for the millimeter-wave radar by mixing a reception wave including a millimeter-wave signal based on the radio wave interference model and a transmission wave including a millimeter-wave signal from the radar device,
and
outputs the IF signal as output data representing a result of perception of an object with the millimeter-wave radar.
NATSUME teaches ‘FMCW RADAR device and method for detecting interference’ and the BRI of:
a millimeter-wave radar (See, e.g., ¶ 0036, 0043; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2A),
and
the radar model
generates an intermediate frequency (IF) signal for the millimeter-wave radar by mixing a reception wave including a millimeter-wave signal based on the radio wave interference model and a transmission wave including a millimeter-wave signal from the radar device (See, e.g., ¶ 0036, 0043; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2A),
and
outputs the IF signal as output data representing a result of perception of an object with the millimeter-wave radar (See, e.g., ¶ 0036, 0043; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2A).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SAFIRA to include a millimeter-wave radar, and the radar model generates an intermediate frequency (IF) signal for the millimeter-wave radar by mixing a reception wave including a millimeter-wave signal based on the radio wave interference model and a transmission wave including a millimeter-wave signal from the radar device, and outputs the IF signal as output data representing a result of perception of an object with the millimeter-wave radar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SAFIRA because it would be beneficial to detecting interference. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter (over prior art)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
None of the cited prior art alone or in combination provides motivation to explicitly teach:
the radio wave interference model includes data on
a reception wave when, in a virtual running environment of the vehicle set on a basis of the simulation scenario,
a reflected wave corresponding to a transmission wave of the radar device reflected off a preceding vehicle to be measured running ahead of the vehicle is received,
and
a transmission wave from another radar device mounted on another vehicle different from the vehicle and the preceding vehicle,
the another radar device being different from the radar device, is received
of claim(s) 7 (including dependent claim(s) 8-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights