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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7-26-2024 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.
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 3, 5, 6-8, 12 and 13 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.
As per claim 3, the phrase “descriptor template” makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the template is or how it is created. Further clarification of the template is required.
As per claims 5, 6-8, 12 and 13, the phrase “projecting…to a projected descriptor” makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the specification what is actually being done when “projecting”. Further clarification is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11, 4-7 and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9 and 18-20 respectively of copending Application No. 18703222 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both provide for localization through radar scanning, localization and descriptor matching.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 5-13, 15-18, 20 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13-16, 17 and 21 respectively of copending Application No, 18703244. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both provide the same method steps. The only difference is a last step of requesting the data and outputting it. This is not a patentably distinct difference as requesting and outputting data from a computer are standard in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner’s Note: 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.
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.
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) 1-5, 9, 14-18, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen, et. al., “Precise Ego-Motion Estimation with Millimeter Wave Radar under Diverse and Challenging Conditions”, IEEE, May 2018.
As per claim 1, Cen discloses a computer-implemented method of localizing a radar sensor, the method comprising:
obtaining a first radar scan of a first environment of the radar sensor, wherein the first radar scan comprises a set of power-range spectra, including a first power-range spectrum (Cen, section III, A);
extracting a first set of landmarks, including a first landmark, from the first radar scan, wherein the first landmark is defined by a range and an azimuth; computing a respective first set of descriptors, including a first descriptor, of the first set of landmarks, wherein the first descriptor defines the first landmark by respective relative ranges and azimuths in relation to one or more landmarks included in the first set of landmarks (Cen, section III, B);
accessing one or more reference set[[s]] of landmarks of respective environments and computing one or more respective reference set[[s]] of descriptors, where each of the one or more reference set of descriptors corresponds to one of the one or more reference set[[s]] of landmarks; matching the first set of descriptors to a corresponding first reference set of descriptors from the one or more respective reference set of descriptors (Cen, section III, C);
and localizing a first location of the radar sensor using a first result of the matching (Cen, section III, D where the first and second location are used to determine motion).
Cen fails to disclose requesting a value and returning it.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the computer output what it calculated in order to gain the benefit of using the data. The examiner submits that requesting data from a computer and having the computer provide an output are normal computer operations.
As per claim 2, Cen further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the computed one or more values are selected from a group consisting of: a 3D eigen matrix of x,y,z, positions of landmarks in a scene, a matrix of point-to-point distances from each point to every other point of a landmarks point cloud, a matrix of angles between points of the landmarks point cloud, a point descriptors matrix computed from the landmarks point cloud, and a range vector computed from the landmarks point cloud (Cen, section III, C using point clouds).
As per claim 3, as best understood by examiner, Cen further discloses the method of claim1, wherein the one or more values derived therefrom from the stored one or more values include a scene descriptors vector computed based on a descriptor template and a computed point descriptors matrix (Cen, section III, C).
As per claim 4, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising: obtaining a second radar scan of the first environment of the radar sensor; extracting a second set of landmarks, including a first second landmark, from the second radar scan; computing a respective second set of descriptors, including a first second descriptor, of the second set of landmarks; matching the second set of descriptors to a corresponding second reference set of descriptors from the one or more respective reference set of descriptors; localizing a second location of the radar sensor using a second result, where the second result is from [[of]] the matching of the second set of descriptors to a corresponding second reference set of descriptors; and calculating a motion of the radar sensor using the second location and the first location (Cen, section III, D where first and second scans are used).
As per claim 5, as best understood by examiner, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein matching the first set of descriptors to the corresponding first reference set of descriptors comprises projecting the first descriptor to a first projected descriptor (Cen, section III, C where matching is accomplished).
As per claim 9, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein matching the first set of descriptors to the corresponding first reference set of descriptors comprises identifying M closest descriptors of the corresponding first reference set of descriptors and finding a single closest descriptor from amongst the M closest descriptors (Cen, section III, C finding the optimal match).
As per claim 14, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the one or more values comprises and/or is the set of descriptors and computing the one or more values comprises computing the set of descriptors (Cen, section III, C where descriptors are assigned).
As per claim 15, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1,comprising storing the reference sets of descriptors; and wherein matching the first set of descriptors to the corresponding first reference set of descriptors comprises matching the first set of descriptors to the corresponding first set of descriptors from the one or more the plurality of reference set of descriptors (Cen, section II, comparing radar landmark point cloud to an existing map of landmarks).
As per claims 16-20, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1 using lookup tables at compile time and runtime and using parallel processing (Cen, section IV).
The examiner submits that it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine when certain processes should be run. Computers are more than capable of parallel processing using multiple cores.
As per claim 22, Cen further discloses the method according to claim 1,comprising: representing the first set of landmarks as a first signature; representing each of the one or more reference set of landmarks as respective reference signatures; and correlating the first signature and a reference signature, thereby approximating the first location of the radar sensor, and wherein accessing the one or more of the reference set of landmarks comprises selectively accessing the one or more of the reference set of landmarks based upon their respective reference signatures (Cen, section II comparing to existing maps and section III creating a set of landmarks).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as correction of any 112 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646