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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “when the prior guardrail pattern is present in the side area” in lines 10-11. It appears that this limitation has been mentioned in lines 3-4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “a linear guardrail function” in line 3. It appears that “a” should be “the”. 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 2-9 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 guardrail detection areas” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “guardrail detection areas” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “guardrail detection areas”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 3-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2 because each of dependent claims 3-9 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the guardrail detections” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “guardrail detections” is not mentioned. It is not clear whether or not “the guardrail detections” in line 10 relates to the “a guardrail detection” mentioned in line . Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “guardrail detections”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 6-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5 because each of dependent claims 6-9 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: 1) “a linear guardrail function” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a linear guardrail function” in line 3 is the same as the “a linear guardrail function” mentioned in claim 6 lines 9-10. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the linear guardrail function”. 2) “the guardrail detection area” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because it is not clear that “the guardrail detection area” in lines 4-5 represents “the guardrail detection area on the front side of the vehicle” mentioned in claim 6 lines 5-6 or one of “the guardrail detection areas” mentioned in claim 2 lines 4-5. If “the guardrail detection area” in lines 4-5 represents one of “the guardrail detection areas” mentioned in claim 2 lines 4-5, it is not clear which one in “the guardrail detection areas” mentioned in claim 2 lines 4-5 is “the guardrail detection area” in lines 4-5. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the guardrail detection area on the front side of the vehicle” mentioned in claim 6 lines 5-6. Appropriate clarifications are required.
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 1-3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN109254289, Chen) in view of Shin (US 11,312,371, hereafter Shin) .
Regarding claim 1, Chen (‘289) discloses that A guardrail detecting apparatus {title (
Detecting Device Of Road Guardrail)} comprising:
a radar sensor configured to {Fig.1; page 2 lines 5-6 (the millimetre wave radar mounted facing the vehicle advancing direction can provide the front of the vehicle); page 3 line 1 (a detecting method for road guardrail)}; and
a controller {Fig.12 item 302 (processor)} configured to select a guardrail detection satisfying a preset condition from detection information received from the radar sensor in a guardrail detection area set on the front side of the vehicle {Fig.1 (
PNG
media_image1.png
43
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
stationary obstacle); Fig.4 item S204 (extract the point set within k meters on both the left and right sides, and fit a straight line); page 3 lines 1-2 (a stationary obstacle detecting vehicle; the front of the vehicle side adjacent stationary obstacle is within a predetermined range), 28-29 (the stationary obstacle in front of the detecting vehicle comprises a stationary obstacle by the millimeter wave radar detects the front of the vehicle); page 6 lines 2-3 from bottom (the extracted point set in vehicle wherein a side k, fitting is a straight line. finding the left and right two side n (recommended 20 < k < 60) within the point set, the two point set is the point near the guardrail)}, and generate a guardrail pattern based on guardrail coordinate information calculated by using coordinate information of the guardrail detection {Fig.1; Fig.4 item S204 (extract the point set within k meters on both the left and right sides, and fit a straight line); Fig.8; page 7 lines 1-3 ( extracting the left side is within a predetermined range (in the range of 60) of the two groups of point set (i.e. as adjacent static obstacle) to perform linear fitting. the vehicle right side and the same extraction performed linear fitting located on the two groups of point set within a predetermined range.); Examiner’s note: Fig.8 for “a guardrail pattern”}.
However, Chen (‘289) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a radar sensor configured to radiate radar signals in different directions from a vehicle”. In the same field of endeavor, Shin (‘371) discloses that
a radar sensor configured to radiate radar signals in different directions from a vehicle { Fig.1 item 110(radar); Col.3 lines 58-59 (The radar 110 may include at least one of a front radar mounted on the front of the vehicle), 61-62 (The present disclosure may be preferably applied to the front radar); col.4 lines 21-25 (two-dimensional antenna array, transmission antenna unit including a total of 12 transmission antennas (Tx) and a receiving antenna unit including 16 receiving antennas (Rx).), 29-34 (the first transmission antenna group may be spaced a predetermined distance in the vertical direction from the second transmission antenna group, and the first or second transmission antenna group may be spaced a predetermined distance in the horizontal direction from the third transmission antenna group.); Examiner’s note: col.4 lines 22-26 for “radiate radar signals in different directions from a vehicle”}.
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 Chen (‘289) with the teachings of Shin (‘371) {use two-dimensional antenna array with spacing in vertical and horizontal directions} to use two-dimensional antenna array with spacing in vertical and horizontal directions. Doing so would form a virtual antenna aperture larger than an actual antenna aperture so as to achieve horizontal and vertical angular precision and resolution, as recognized by Shin (‘371) {col.4 lines 11-14 (form a virtual antenna aperture larger than an actual antenna aperture, to achieve horizontal and vertical angular precision and resolution, two-dimensional antenna array may be used), 25-26 (As a result, it is possible to have a total of 192 virtual receiving antenna arrangements) }.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the controller includes:
an area setter { see Chen (‘289) Fig.4 item S203; Fig.8; page 6 line 21 (S203, to cluster), 4 from bottom (Fig.8, 5 point set)} configured to, when a prior guardrail pattern is present in a side area of the vehicle, set a plurality of the guardrail detection areas at a specific distance interval in a travel direction of the vehicle based on a location of the prior guardrail pattern in the side area { see Chen (‘289) Fig.8 (see marks below) }, and set a transverse direction detection area including a specific distance range in leftward and rightward directions from a location of the prior guardrail pattern in the side area, in the plurality of the guardrail detection areas { see Chen (‘289) Fig.8 (see marks below); page 6 line 2 from bottom (finding the left and right two side n (recommended 20 < k < 60) within the point set, the two point set is the point near the guardrail); page 7 lines 1-3 (extracting the left side is within a predetermined range (in the range of 60) of the two groups of point set (i.e. as adjacent static obstacle) to perform linear fitting. the vehicle right side and the same extraction performed linear fitting located on the two groups of point set within a predetermined range.)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
653
295
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus,
in the plurality of the guardrail detection areas, first N areas are set on a left side of a center line in a longitudinal direction that is parallel to a travel direction of the vehicle, and second N areas corresponding to the first N areas are set on a right side of the center line { see Chen (‘289) Fig.8 (see marks in the rejection of claim 2)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1-2, Chen (‘289) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the controller
a signal processor {Fig. 12 item 302 (processor) } configured to generate detection information on at least one target {page 7 lines 14-17 from bottom (Fig.12, processors 302, detect obstacles on the road, implement, road guardrail detection method)};
a determiner { Fig.4 items S203 (cluster), S204 (extract point set)} configured to select a guardrail detection included in the transverse direction detection area in the detection information in the guardrail detection area set on the front side of the vehicle, and determine whether a guardrail is present in the plurality of the guardrail detection areas based on a number of the guardrail detections in the transverse direction detection area {Fig.4 items S203 (cluster), S204 (extract point set); Fig.8 (see marks below)}; and
PNG
media_image2.png
653
295
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a guardrail generator {Fig.4 item S204 (extract point set, fit straight line); Fig.9} configured to, when it is identified that the guardrail is present in at least one of the plurality of the guardrail detection areas, calculate a coordinate of the guardrail based on coordinate information of the guardrail detection, and generate the guardrail pattern based on the coordinate of the guardrail { Fig.4 item S204 (extract point set, fit straight line); Fig.9; Examiner’s note: “fit straight line” for “a guardrail generator” and “generate the guardrail pattern”. Fig.9 for “calculate a coordinate of the guardrail based on coordinate information of the guardrail detection” }.
However, Chen (‘289) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “the controller includes: a signal processor”. In the same field of endeavor, Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus,
the controller { Fig.2 item 130 (controller)} includes:
a signal processor { col.5 line 8 (The controller 130 may include at least one processor.)} configured to generate detection information on at least one target {col.1 lines 62-63 (a controller for determining a stationary object among the objects based on the detection data)};
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 Chen (‘289) with the teachings of Shin (‘371) {use two-dimensional antenna array with spacing in vertical and horizontal directions and use processor in a controller} to use two-dimensional antenna array with spacing in vertical and horizontal directions and use processor in a controller. Doing so would form a virtual antenna aperture larger than an actual antenna aperture to determine a stationary object among the objects based on the detection data and to determine whether the stationary object is a guardrail based on the extracted feature points so as to achieve horizontal and vertical angular precision and resolution, as recognized by Shin (‘371) {col.1 lines 62-65 (determining a stationary object among the objects based on the detection data, determining whether the stationary object is a guardrail based on the extracted feature points); col.4 lines 11-14 (form a virtual antenna aperture larger than an actual antenna aperture, to achieve horizontal and vertical angular precision and resolution, two-dimensional antenna array may be used), 25-26 (As a result, it is possible to have a total of 192 virtual receiving antenna arrangements) }.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1-2, 5, the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the determiner is further configured to:
when the prior guardrail pattern is present in the side area of the vehicle , select a stationary object detection included in the transverse direction detection area in the guardrail detection area on the front side of the vehicle as a guardrail candidate detection {see Chen (‘289) Fig.4 item 201 (tracking stationary obstacles); Fig.7},
compare an actual transverse direction location of the guardrail candidate detection and a predicted transverse direction location based on a linear guardrail function used when the prior guardrail pattern is present in the side area { see Chen (‘289) Fig.9 (see dots and dash line); page 6 line 3 from bottom (fitting is a straight line); Examiner’s note: fitting for “compare”}, and
select a corresponding guardrail candidate detection as the guardrail detection { see Chen (‘289) Fig.9 (see dash line); page 4 line 19 (Fig.9, a near point set fitting straight line)} when a difference between the actual transverse direction location and the predicted transverse direction location is within a preset error range { see Chen (‘289) page 3 lines 5-6 (the adjacent stationary obstacles and the stationary obstacle for fitting, fitting said road guardrail.), 24-25 (the selected fitting further comprises: when one of the type of point set exceeds a certain number of points to the straight line distance does not exceed the threshold value)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1-2, 5-6, the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the determiner is further configured to:
determine that the guardrail is present in the corresponding guardrail detection area when a number of moving object detections in the guardrail detection area on the front side of the vehicle is 0 and the number of the guardrail detections is one or more {see Chen (‘289) Fig.7}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1-2, 5-7, the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the guardrail generator is further configured to:
calculate a linear guardrail function based on the coordinate information of the guardrail detections in the guardrail detection area { see Chen (‘289) Fig.9 (see dash line); page 4 line 19 (Fig.9, a near point set fitting straight line)}, and
calculate a coordinate of the guardrail included in the guardrail detection area by substituting the coordinate information of the prior guardrail pattern present in the side area of the vehicle into the linear guardrail function { see Chen (‘289) Fig.9 (see mark below); page 4 line 19 (Fig.9, a near point set fitting straight line)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
780
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claims 1-2, 5, the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the guardrail generator is further configured to:
sequentially generate guardrail pattern in N guardrail detection areas on left side and right side from a first guardrail detection area on the front side of the vehicle { see Chen (‘289) Fig.7 (see marks below)}, and
PNG
media_image4.png
785
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
end an operation of generating the guardrail pattern for subsequent guardrail detection areas when no guardrail pattern is generated in any one guardrail detection area among the N guardrail detection areas { see Chen (‘289) Fig.7 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image5.png
785
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, as modified above, Chen (‘289) discloses that A guardrail detecting method {title (Detecting Method and Detecting Device Of Road Guardrail)} comprising:
detecting, by a radar sensor, a guardrail on a front side of a vehicle, wherein the radar sensor is configured to radiate radar signals in different directions from the vehicle; and
selecting, by a controller, a guardrail detection satisfying a preset condition from detection information received from the radar sensor in a guardrail detection area set on a front side of the vehicle, and
generating, by the controller, a guardrail pattern based on guardrail coordinate information calculated by using coordinate information of the guardrail detection.
{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}.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2015/0198711, hereafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1-2, Chen (‘289) discloses that in the guardrail detecting apparatus, the area setter is further configured to:
adjust an interval of the plurality of the guardrail detection areas based on a velocity of the vehicle {page 2 lines 16 (the stationary obstacle is the millimetre wave radar detects the guardrail), 23 (high-speed automatic driving condition,), 26 (low speed condition)};
.
However, Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) do not disclose (see words with underline) “adjust the specific distance range of the transverse direction detection area based on a yaw rate of the vehicle”. In the same field of endeavor, Zeng (‘711) discloses that
adjust the specific distance range of the transverse direction detection area based on a yaw rate of the vehicle {[0028] lines 2-5 (the host vehicle kinematics are denoted by the host vehicle speed vH and the host vehicle yaw rate wH. For a stationary target, the detected radar points are moving in Velocities v. This Velocity may be determined using the following formulas:),
PNG
media_image6.png
65
101
media_image6.png
Greyscale
; Examiner’s note: stationary target identification relates to host vehicle yaw rate, therefore “adjust the specific distance range of the transverse direction detection area based on a yaw rate of the vehicle” because guardrail data points are stationary objects. }.
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 the combination of Chen (‘289) and Shin (‘371) with the teachings of Zeng (‘711) {consider yaw rate of host vehicle in stationary target recognition} to consider yaw rate of host vehicle in stationary target recognition. Doing so would provide an enhanced tracking of an objects position and orientation relative to a host vehicle so as to determine whether the cluster is stationary or dynamic and accurately track targets, as recognized by Zeng (‘711) {[0003] lines 1-6 (enhanced tracking of an objects position and orientation relative to a host vehicle, determining whether the cluster is stationary or dynamic); [0040] lines 3-5 (orientation of the vehicle using the plurality of tracking points allows the vehicle position and orientation to be accurately tracked.)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2021102689 discloses that “generate a guardrail pattern based on guardrail coordinate information calculated by using coordinate information of the guardrail detection” { Fig.4 item 304 (pattern); Fig.6}, which further support the rejections of claims 1 and 10.
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
Prosecution Insights