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 08/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Newly added claims 11-18 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7) about the objection to claim 4, the objection has been overcome by the amendment.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 7-8) about amended Claims 1 and 10 is moot based on the new ground rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 objected to because of typographical errors: “are” in line 10. It appears that “are” should be “area”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 objected to because of typographical error: “includes;” in line 2. It appears that “;” should be “:”. 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.
Claims 5, 10-18 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 5 recites the limitation " the false target determiner" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “false target determiner” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "the controller includes a [[the]] false target determiner". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitations: 1) “first detection sensor information” in line 12. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “first detection sensor information” in line 12 relates to the “first detection sensor information” in line 6. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the first detection sensor information”. 2) “second detection sensor information” in line 13. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “second detection sensor information” in line 13 relates to the “second detection sensor information” in line 9. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the second detection sensor information”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 11-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10 because each of dependent claims 11-18 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 10.
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 1-4, 6, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delcheccolo et al. (US 2002/0067287, hereafter Delcheccolo).
Regarding claim 1, Delcheccolo (‘287) discloses that A target detecting apparatus based on radar {title (NEAR OBJECT DETECTION SYSTEM); Fig.7 item 150 (Radar (NODS, FLRS)); [0010] lines 1-2 (near object detection (NOD) system)}, comprising:
a radar sensor including a plurality of sensors configured to radiate radar signals in different directions from a vehicle to detect a target {Fig.2; [0037] lines 3-5 (a NOD system is disposed is shown surrounded by a plurality of detection zones 32-40 which form a radar cocoon around the vehicle) }; and
a controller configured to generate an initial track based on target detection information from the radar sensor {Fig.7 item 152 (MHT for track initiation and data association); [0053] line 3 from bottom (processor initiaties tracks for unassociated data); [0067] lines 8-9 (Multiple Hypothesis Tracker (MHT) for track initiation and data association)},
generate first detection sensor information indicating, for each of the plurality of sensors, whether the radar sensor detects the initial track { Fig.7 item 152 (MHT for track initiation and data association); [0053] line 3 from bottom (processor initiaties tracks for unassociated data); [0067] lines 8-9 (Multiple Hypothesis Tracker (MHT) for track initiation and data association); Examiner’s note: “data association” for “indicating, for each of the plurality of sensors, whether the radar sensor detects the initial track”. “Multiple Hypothesis Tracker” and MHT for “first detection sensor information”.},
identify a location coordinate of the initial track {Fig.4A-D; [0048] lines 4 (track the same target), 1-2 from bottom (18, 20 both sensors track the target 54); [0050] lines 5-6 (transform sensor data to a vehicle fixed coordinate system)};
generate second detection sensor information indicating, for each of the plurality of sensors, whether the location coordinate of the initial track is included in a detection are of the radar sensor {Fig.4; Fig.4A-D; [0048] lines 4 (track the same target), 1-2 from bottom (18, 20 both sensors track the target 54); Examiner’s note: overlap between items 57a-g and 58a-g as well as item 54 for “generate second detection sensor information indicating, for each of the plurality of sensors, whether the location coordinate of the initial track is included in a detection are of the radar sensor”, in which item 54 in overlap between items 57a-g and 58a-g for “second detection sensor information”. item 54 for “the location coordinate of the initial track”. overlap between items 57a-g and 58a-g for “a detection are of the radar sensor”.},
and compare the first detection sensor information and the second detection sensor information to determine that the initial track is a false target when the first detection sensor information and the second detection sensor information do not coincide with each other after comparison with each other { Fig.4; Fig.4A-D; Fig.7 item 152 (MHT for track initiation and data association), 154 (a hypothesis about data association); [0048] lines 4 (track the same target), 1-2 from bottom (18, 20 both sensors track the target 54); [0052] lines 1-7 (Since all target information appears in a single coordinate system, the CT/DF is able to rapidly identify those targets which are being tracked by multiple sensors. Thus, the CT/DF processor30 is able to fuse data from each track provided by each sensor into a common filter, or simply select the highest quality data, as determined by tracking noise, e.g. sensors 18, 20,); [0067] lines 8-10 (Multiple Hypothesis Tracker (MHT) for track initiation and data association, 154 a hypothesis about data association); Examiner’s note: Fig.4A-D is “Multiple Hypothesis Tracker” for “the first detection sensor information”. Fig.4 for “the second detection sensor information”. [0048] lines 4 and 1-2 from bottom and [0052] lines 1-7 for “determine that the initial track is a false target when the first detection sensor information and the second detection sensor information do not coincide with each other after comparison with each other” because “coincide” information of detected target in Fig.4 and Fig.4A-D is tracked and “tracking noise” as indicated in [0052] line 7 is “false target”. “noise” indicates “the first detection sensor information and the second detection sensor information do not coincide with each other after comparison with each other”.}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Delcheccolo (‘287) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus, the plurality of sensors includes:
a first sensor configured to irradiate a radar signal toward a front right side of the vehicle to detect the target;
a second sensor configured to radiate a radar signal toward a front left side of the vehicle to detect the target;
a third sensor configured to irradiate a radar signal toward a rear right side of the vehicle to detect the target; and
a fourth sensor configured to irradiate a radar signal toward a rear left side of the vehicle to detect the target.
{Fig.1; Fig.2; [0037] lines 3-5 (a NOD system is disposed is shown surrounded by a plurality of detection zones 32-40 which form a radar cocoon around the vehicle), 9-12 (sensor 16 provides a lane keeping zone, sensor 18 provides road departure zone, 36b respectively, sensors 20, 22 provide side object detection zones 38a, 38b) }.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, Delcheccolo (‘287) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus, the controller includes:
a signal processor configured to generate one or more target detection information based on the radar signals of the first to fourth sensors {Fig.2; Fig.7}; and
a track generator configured to compare a correlation between the one or more target detection information, generate the initial track { Fig.4; Fig.4A-D; Fig.7 items 152 (MHT for track initiation and data association), 154 (a hypothesis about data association), 160 (public tracks); [0053] line 3 from bottom (processor initiaties tracks for unassociated data); Examiner’s note: “data association” for “a correlation between the one or more target detection information”}, and store the first detection sensor information {Fig.7 items 152 (MHT for track initiation and data association), 154 (a hypothesis about data association), 156 (Kalman Filters), Track state vectors; [0067] lines 2-3 from bottom (The data is then processed in a state prediction filter such as a Kalman filter); Examiner’s note: Kalman Filters use prior knowledge to perform prediction, therefore prior knowledge, which is data from Fig.7 items 152 (MHT for track initiation and data association) and 154 (a hypothesis about data association)) is stored for performing Kalman filter in Fig.7 item 156.}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1-3, Delcheccolo (‘287) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus, the controller is further configured to:
set areas corresponding to overlapping detection areas as angle folding areas {Fig.4 (see overlap area between items 57a-g and 58a-g); [0048] lines 4 (track the same target), 1-2 from bottom (18, 20 both sensors track the target 54)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1-4, Delcheccolo (‘287) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus, the track generator is further configured to:
generate a confirmed track for the initial track when the location coordinate of the initial track is not included in the angle folding areas {Fig.4 items 52; [0044] lines 4-5 (assume sensor 18 mounted on vehicle 11 detects the target 52 and begins to track the target 52.)}.
Regarding claim 10, Delcheccolo (‘287) discloses that A target detecting method based on radar {title (NEAR OBJECT DETECTION SYSTEM); Fig.7 item 150 (Radar (NODS, FLRS)); [0010] lines 1-2 (near object detection (NOD) system); Examiner’s note: Fig.7 for “method”}, comprising:
radiating, by a radar sensor including a plurality of sensors, radar signals in different directions from a radar sensor of a vehicle to detect a target; and
generating, by a controller, an initial track based on target detection information from the radar sensor;
generating by the controller, first detection sensor information indicating, for each of the plurality of sensors, whether the radar sensor detects the initial track;
identifying by the controller, a location coordinate of the initial track;
generating by the controller, second detection sensor information indicating, for each of the plurality of sensors, whether the location coordinate of the initial track is included in a detection are of the radar sensor; and
comparing, by the controller, first detection sensor information and second detection sensor information to determine that the initial track is a false target when the first detection sensor information and the second detection sensor information do not coincide with each other after comparison with each other.
{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}.
Regarding claims 11-13, 15, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2-4, 6, respectively. Accordingly, claims 11-13, 15 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2-4, 6, respectively, shown above.
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.
Claims 5, 7-9, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delcheccolo (‘287) as applied to claim 4 for claim 5, claim 6 for claim 7, claim 3 for claims 8-9, claim 13 for claim 14, claim 15 for claim 16, claim 12 for claims 17-18 above, and further in view of Cashler (US 2016/0274228, hereafter Cashler).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1-4, Delcheccolo (‘287) does not explicitly disclose “the false target determiner is configured to: determine whether the initial track is the false target when the location coordinate of the initial track is included in at least one of the angle folding areas”. In the same field of endeavor, Cashler (‘228) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus,
the false target determiner {Fig.2 (identify invalid detections); [0014] lines 12-16 (Radar Tracker to disregard invalid detection when forming radar-tracks. This controller 30 sets a trailer presence flag to indicate that detections behind the vehicle 12 may be invalid and should not be used to create radar tracks.); [0018] lines 1-3 from bottom (if both the first signal 22 and the second signal 52 indicate a target at the same location, the controller 30 may classify that target as an actual target.)} is configured to:
determine whether the initial track is the false target when the location coordinate of the initial track is included in at least one of the angle folding areas { Fig.1 item 14 at overlap area of area 24 and 54; [0015] lines 2-4 (A track that forms from the trailer 14 can easily be identified as part of the trailer 14 and disregarded by the system 10.) }.
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 Delcheccolo (‘287) with the teachings of Cashler (‘228) {object detection system including identify invalid detections that identify whether a track is formed from an invalid detection (e.g. trailer)} to have identify invalid detections that identify whether a track is formed from an invalid detection (e.g. trailer). Doing so would find invalid object (e.g. trailer being towed by the vehicle) so as to avoid false warnings indicating a vehicle is approaching when there is actually nothing, as recognized by Cashler (‘228) {[0002] lines 11 (the host vehicle is towing a trailer), 3-4 from bottom (sound a false warning indicating that, for example, a vehicle is approaching from the rear when there is actually nothing); [0015] lines 1-2 from bottom (eliminate the unwanted false tracks.)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1-4 and 6, Delcheccolo (‘287) does not explicitly disclose that “the controller is further configured to: output information on the confirmed track to a warning system in the vehicle when the confirmed track is generated”. In the same field of endeavor, Cashler (‘228) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus, the controller is further configured to:
output information on the confirmed track to a warning system in the vehicle when the confirmed track is generated { Fig.2 “radar tracker” output to “system feature and alerts”; [0014] lines 10-13 (that flags these invalid detections prior to the Radar Tracker block processing which allows the Radar Tracker to disregard invalid detection when forming radar-tracks.), 3-5 from bottom (if a target is detected and deemed to be an actual target proximate to the vehicle, the System Features and Alerts block may illuminate an indicator); [0015] lines 2-4 (A track that forms from the trailer 14 can easily be identified as part of the trailer 14 and disregarded by the system 10.)}.
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 Delcheccolo (‘287) with the teachings of Cashler (‘228) {object detection system including that radar tracker outputs to system feature and alerts} to output information from radar tracker to system feature and alerts. Doing so would warn vehicle operator regarding actual object detection (especially at blind spot) so as to avoid false warnings indicating a vehicle is approaching when there is actually nothing, as recognized by Cashler (‘228) {[0002] lines 2-4 (detecting objects such as other vehicles proximate to the host vehicle, blind spot), 7-8 (object detection may also be useful to warn the operator of a rapidly approaching vehicle), 11 (the host vehicle is towing a trailer), 3-4 from bottom (sound a false warning indicating that, for example, a vehicle is approaching from the rear when there is actually nothing); [0014] lines 1-5 from bottom (a target is detected and deemed to be an actual target proximate to the vehicle, the System Features and Alerts block may illuminate an indicator that indicates what side of the vehicle 12 the actual target is located, and may sound a chime or other audible alert.); [0015] lines 1-2 from bottom (eliminate the unwanted false tracks.)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1-3, Delcheccolo (‘287) does not explicitly disclose that “the controller is configured to: delete the initial track when it is identified that the initial track is the false target”. In the same field of endeavor, Cashler (‘228) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus, the controller is configured to:
delete the initial track when it is identified that the initial track is the false target { [0014] lines 12-13 (Radar Tracker to disregard invalid detection when forming radar-tracks); [0015] lines 1-2 from bottom (eliminate the unwanted false tracks.) }.
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 Delcheccolo (‘287) with the teachings of Cashler (‘228) {object detection system including identify invalid detections that identify and remove a track formed from an invalid detection (e.g. trailer)} to have identify invalid detections that identify and remove a track formed from an invalid detection (e.g. trailer). Doing so would find invalid object (e.g. trailer being towed by the vehicle) so as to avoid false warnings indicating a vehicle is approaching when there is actually nothing, as recognized by Cashler (‘228) {[0002] lines 11 (the host vehicle is towing a trailer), 3-4 from bottom (sound a false warning indicating that, for example, a vehicle is approaching from the rear when there is actually nothing); [0015] lines 1-2 from bottom (eliminate the unwanted false tracks.)}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claims 1-3, Delcheccolo (‘287) does not explicitly disclose “in the first detection sensor information, detection information of the first to fourth sensors on the initial track is stored as a bit value of 0 or 1” and “in the second detection sensor information, information on whether the location coordinate of the initial track is included in the detection areas of the first to fourth sensors is stored as a bit value of 0 or 1”. In the same field of endeavor, Cashler (‘228) discloses that in the target detecting apparatus,
in the first detection sensor information, detection information of the first to { [0011] lines 7-8 (The controller 30 may include memory), 10-11 (for storing one or more routines, thresholds and captured data); Examiner’s note: memory stores data in binary format, which is for “a bit value of 0 or 1”}, and
in the second detection sensor information, information on whether the location coordinate of the initial track is included in detection areas of the first to { [0011] lines 7-8 (The controller 30 may include memory), 10-11 (for storing one or more routines, thresholds and captured data); [0014] lines 10-16 (that flags these invalid detections prior to the Radar Tracker block processing which allows the Radar Tracker to disregard invalid detection when forming radar-tracks. This controller 30 sets a trailer presence flag to indicate that detections behind the vehicle 12 may be invalid and should not be used to create radar tracks.) ; Examiner’s note: memory stores data in binary format, which is for “a bit value of 0 or 1”}.
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. store data in memory in binary format ) to a known device (e.g. object detection system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. data is stored for use by processor for further processing) and result in an improved system (e.g. for Kalman filter for prediction, as recognized by Delcheccolo (‘287) {0067} lines 1-2 from bottom (prediction filter such as a Kalman filter as shown in block 150.); for use by controller, as recognized by Cashler (‘228) {[0011] lines 7-14 (The controller 30 may include memory (not shown), including non-volatile memory, such as electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EE PROM) for storing one or more routines, thresholds and captured data. The one or more routines may be executed by the processor to perform steps for determining if signals received by the controller 30 should be classified as an actual target or a false target as described herein.)}).
Regarding claims 14, 16-18, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 5, 7-9, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14, 16-18 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 5, 7-9, respectively, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0049511 discloses that “a first sensor configured to irradiate a radar signal toward a front right side of the vehicle to detect the target; a second sensor configured to radiate a radar signal toward a front left side of the vehicle to detect the target; a third sensor configured to irradiate a radar signal toward a rear right side of the vehicle to detect the target; and a fourth sensor configured to irradiate a radar signal toward a rear left side of the vehicle to detect the target” {Fig.2; [0033] lines 2-4 (sensors 116 including a front radar sensor 202, left front radar sensor 204, right front radar sensor 206, left rear radar sensor 208, right rear radar sensor 210)}, which further support the rejections of claims 2 and 11.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights