DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 based on Ham as modified by and Yang and HORN, the Applicant states that the prior art fails to disclose at least ”two mmWave radar sensor modules each having a 180- degree field of operation” and “the mmWave radar sensor modules having access over communication network of the vehicle to a display part
The Applicant purports that the two mmWave radar sensor modules of Ham fail to use a 180- degree field of operation citing that figure 2 of Ham appears to disclose a 120-degree field of view. The Examiner remind the Applicant that Ham was not relied upon to disclose field of operation in the previously filled rejection. The previously filled rejection relied upon Ham as modified by Yang to reject the above limitation. The Applicant briefly addresses prior art reference Yang on page 19 of their arguments suggesting that as Yang fails to disclose two mmWave radar sensor modules it cannot cure the purported deficiencies of primary reference Ham. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and further reminds the Applicant that it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As indicated in the previously filled rejection Ham discloses two mmWave radar sensor modules (FIG.2, Parts. 110 &120), having identical hardware components, and having the same respective hardware arrangement inside the said mmWave sensor modules [0054]. Ham does not however explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna has a 180 degree field of operation. Yang further discloses on paragraph [0099] the use of a radar sensor module comprising a 180 degree field of view. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two mmWave radar sensor modules of Ham with the teachings of Yang in order to extend the field of operation of each antenna to 180 degrees.
The Applicant further purports that primary reference Ham fails to disclose wherein the mmWave radar sensor modules have access over a communication network of the vehicle to a display part that is positioned in a visual field of a driver of the vehicle. In support of this position the Applicant indicates that “Ham instead discloses two radar sensors 110, 120 and also a controller, where the controller provides for processing,” without providing further explanation regarding why they believe this citation supports their position. As corroborated by the Applicant on page 19 of their arguments, Figure 1 of Ham discloses a first and second radar sensor [parts. 110 & 120] connected to a controller [Part.140] which is further connected to a multimedia device comprising a display and speaker [Part.30]. Paragraph [0050] further clarifies that the radar sensors may be electrically connected to the controller through a vehicle communication network. Ham discloses “mmWave radar sensor modules having access over communication network of the vehicle to a display part” as recited by independent claim 1. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, page 9 lines 23 through 26, “basic classification categories of the classification information including passenger vehicles, large commercial vehicles not exceeding 10 meters in length, and motorbikes,” should be read “basic classification categories of the classification information including: passenger vehicles, large commercial vehicles not exceeding 10 meters in length, and motorbikes;” 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 1-15 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “the back side of one of said mmWave radar sensors in relation to the back side of another one of said mmWave radar sensor modules defines an angle greater than 60 degrees.” The claim defines the “mmWave radar sensor module,” providing antecedent basis for the term. The claim does not provide further antecedent basis for the term “mmWave radar sensor.” As such there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “mmWave radar sensor.” Further, it is unclear if the terms “mmWave radar sensors” and “mmWave radar sensor modules” are intended to refer to the same component type or different component types. For examination purposes the term “mmWave radar sensors” will be interpreted to refer to “mmWave radar sensor modules.”
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “wherein at least one of said mmWave radar sensor modules is configured to send classification information about said objects.” The limitation indicates that classification information is sent from mmWave radar sensor modules, does not later clarify where classification information is sent to. The claim later clarifies what constitutes classification information and that the information is transmitted over a 4-pin connector, but does not limit an end destination for the classification information. Review of the specification reveals “The proposed system can send information to the vehicle control system advantageously to initialize the autonomous,” on page 4 lines 1 through 2. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “configured to send classification information” and clearly disclose what the limitation means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the claim based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the limitation in claim 1 will be interpreted to mean that the radar sensor modules send information to the vehicle control system.
Regarding claim 10, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “provides warning distances to nearby objects of the vehicle without needing to execute the classification of the nearby objects.” As claimed limitation indicates that information in the form of warning distances are provided to nearby objects not that the information is sent to a computer component such as a processor or display. It is unclear what is meant by sending information to objects near a vehicle. Review of the specification reveals “the surrounding awareness information is used additionally as a parking support and provides warning distances to the vehicle,” on page 11 lines 1 through 3. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “warning distances” and clearly disclose what the limitation means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the claim based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the limitation in claim 10 will be interpreted to mean that warning distances are provided to the vehicle control system.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham(US20220119038A1) in view of Yang(US20220190482A1) and in further view of HORN(US20220169273A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ham discloses
A system providing vehicle surrounding awareness (“FIG. 7 is a view illustrating that a driver assistance apparatus obtains information by detecting data” [0037]), the system comprising: […],the mmWave radar sensor modules having identical hardware components and having the same respective hardware arrangement inside the mmWave radar sensor modules(“ A structure and a function of the transmission antenna and the reception antenna of the second radar sensor 120 are substantially the same as the transmission antenna module 111 and the reception antenna module 121a, 121b, 121C, and 121d of the first radar sensor 110” [0054]), having access over communication network of the vehicle (“The first radar sensor 110 may be electrically connected to the controller 140” [0050] & “The first radar sensor 110 may be electrically connected to the controller 140 through, for example, a vehicle communication network NT” [0050]) to a display part positioned in a visual field of a driver of the vehicle(“The cluster 10 displays driving information of the vehicle 1 including a driving speed of the vehicle 1, a RPM of an engine and/or an amount of fuel, and may be located in front of the driver as illustrated in FIG. 4” [0039]) wherein each of the mmWave radar sensor modules is configured to be disposed rear corners of the vehicle(FIG.2, Parts. 110 &120), a rear side of the vehicle being defined as being opposite to main driving direction side of the vehicle (FIG.2, Parts. 110 &120)wherein a radiation diagram in the elevation plane of the mmWave radar sensor modules has maximum radiation in a horizontal plane parallel to the ground wherein a radiation diagram in the azimuth plane of the mmWave radar sensor modules has maximum radiation in the plane perpendicular to back sides of said mmWave radar sensor module (“The first radar sensor 110 may include a transmission antenna module 111 (for example, a transmission antenna array) that radiates a frequency modulated continuous wave 112 toward the left rear of the vehicle 1” [0044]) wherein the back side of one of said mmWave radar sensors in relation to the back side of another one of said mmWave radar sensor modules defines an angle greater than 60 degrees, (FIG.2, Parts. 110a &120a) wherein at least one of said mmWave radar sensor modules has digital processing hardware functionality (“the processor 141 may include a digital signal processor that processes the detecting data of the first and second radars 110 and 120” [0059]) to perform a classification of objects- detected by the respective said mmWave radar sensor module(“The processor 141 may identify the object […] based on the detecting data of the first radar sensor 110 and the second radar sensor 120” [0060]), using radar sensor point cloud data (“generate a plurality of detection points based on processing of the first detecting data and the second detecting data,” [0012]) previously generated by other functionality within the respective mmWave radar sensor module (“ the processor 141 may identify a distance between the vehicle 1 and the object (hereinafter referred to as a “relative distance”)” [0061]) wherein at least one of said mmWave radar sensor modules is configured to send classification information about said objects in areas surrounding left, right, and rear sides of the vehicle, distances of the objects to the vehicle (“The controller 140 may provide information about the risk of collision between the vehicle 1 and the rear side object to the driver based on information about the object located at the rear side of the vehicle 1” [0092] & Fig.2, Parts.110a & 120a)), relative positions of the objects to the vehicle(“ a direction in which the object is located with respect to the vehicle 1” [0061]), and relative speed of the vehicles (“a relative moving speed of the object with respect to the vehicle 1” [0061]) basic classification categories of the classification information including passenger vehicles(“The processor 141 may identify the object (for example, another vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.)” [0060]), […],wherein the display part, positioned in the visual field of the driver(“The cluster 10 displays driving information of the vehicle 1 including a driving speed of the vehicle 1, a RPM of an engine and/or an amount of fuel, and may be located in front of the driver as illustrated in FIG. 4” [0039]), uses the classification information and shows dynamic positions of the objects as surrounding awareness information(“The cluster 10 may display information about an emergency situation such as a risk of collision of the vehicle 1 in response to a control request from the driver assistance apparatus 100” [0039]), wherein the objects are represented by artificial pictures, related to said basic classification categories (“The multimedia device 30 may include a display 31 for displaying an image (or moving image) for the driver's convenience “ [0040]), and wherein the total view coverage in the azimuth plane is greater than 300 degrees (FIG.2, Parts. 110a &120a)
Ham does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna has a 180 degree field of operation. Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of antenna design. Yang discloses, two mmWave radar sensor modules each having a 180- degree field of operation (“, the radiation pattern changes from a omni-directional antenna to a unidirectional pattern with about 180 degree half-power beam width (HPBW)” [0099])
Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of antenna design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham with the teachings of Yang to incorporate the features of a 180-degree field of operation so as to gain the advantage of increasing detection range. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Ham as modified by Yang does not explicitly disclose nor limit a 4-pin connector or wherein classification categories include motorbikes. HORN teaches in the same field of automotive radar sensing. HORN discloses basic classification categories of the classification information […] including large commercial vehicles not exceeding 10 meters in length and motorbikes (“a classification of the external object (e.g. tractor-trailer, small automobile, motorcycle) may be made” [0086]), the classification information being physically sent from at least one of the mmWave radar sensor modules over a 4-pin connect (“Various direct connections, BUS data communications, and others are possible for communication between the sensors, such as the radar sensor 350, and one or more processors.” [0136]).
HORN teaches in the same field of automotive radar sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang with the teachings of HORN to incorporate the features of a 4-pin connector or wherein classification categories include motorbikes so as to gain the advantage of improving object detection. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham as modified by Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose connectors with more than 4 pins. HORN teaches in the same field of automotive radar sensing. Horn discloses, wherein the mmWave sensor modules have connectors with more than 4 pins (“Various direct connections, BUS data communications, and others are possible for communication between the sensors, such as the radar sensor 350, and one or more processors.” [0136]).
HORN teaches in the same field of automotive radar sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang with the teachings of HORN to incorporate the features of a connector with more than 4 pins so as to gain the advantage of improving data communication. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 2. Ham discloses wherein, the basic classification categories are extended to the detection of bicycles (“The processor 141 may identify the object (for example, another vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) “ [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham discloses wherein, the surrounding awareness information is continuously updated on the display part and is visually accessible to the driver (“The controller 140 may provide information about the risk of collision between the vehicle 1 and the rear side object to the driver based on information about the object located at the rear side of the vehicle 1” [0092]).
Regarding claim 8, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham discloses wherein, wherein the surrounding awareness information is used to issue warnings to the driver (“The controller 140 may provide information about the risk of collision between the vehicle 1 and the rear side object to the driver based on information about the object located at the rear side of the vehicle 1” [0092]).
Regarding claim 9, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 7. Ham does not appear to disclose sending data to a cloud. Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of antenna design. Yang discloses wherein, the surrounding awareness information is sent by the wireless connectivity of the vehicle to a cloud server, to be accessed by other systems (“ In some cases, the UEs 110, 140 may communicate with each other and/or with one or more servers 150. The particular server(s) 150 may depend on the application used by the UEs 110, 140.” [0036]).
Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of antenna design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham with the teachings of Yang to incorporate the features of sending data to a cloud so as to gain the advantage of improving data storage. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham discloses wherein, the surrounding awareness information is used by the vehicle infrastructure to perform actions autonomously, the actions changing a dynamical behavior of the said vehicle (“ and/or a micro control unit (MCU) that generates a driving signal/braking signal/steering signal” [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham discloses wherein, the surrounding awareness information is used as a parking support (“it is possible to provide the driver assistance apparatus capable of assisting the driver while the vehicle is leaving the parking space, the vehicle having the same, and the method of controlling the vehicle.” [0152]) and provides warning distances to nearby objects of the vehicle without needing to execute the classification of the nearby objects (“the multimedia device 30, and the power steering 40 to warn of the collision “ [0150]).
Regarding claim 12, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham discloses, the method implemented in a mmWave sensor signal processing to provide vehicle surrounding awareness using the system according claim 1, the method comprising: performing a classification of the objects around the vehicle to obtain a classification information (“The processor 141 may identify the object […] based on the detecting data of the first radar sensor 110 and the second radar sensor 120” [0060]); and using said classification information to show dynamic positions of the objects relative to the vehicle (“The multimedia device 30 may include a display 31 for displaying an image (or moving image) for the driver's convenience “ [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 12. Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of antenna design. Ham discloses, A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 12 (“The memory 142 may store or memorize programs and data for processing the detection data of the first and second radar sensors 110 and 120 and controlling the operation of the driver assistance apparatus 100.” [0087]).
Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of antenna design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham with the teachings of Yang to incorporate the features of sending data to a cloud so as to gain the advantage of improving data storage. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 4, 6, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham(US20220119038A1) modified by Yang(US20220190482A1) and HORN(US20220169273A1) as applied in claims 1, 3, and 12 above, and further in view of Yu(US20230038842A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 3. Ham as modified by Yang and HORN does not appear to explicitly disclose classifying long commercial vehicles. Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. Yu discloses, wherein the basic classification categories include long commercial vehicles, exceeding 10 meters in length (“a type of an object can refer to a high-level classification, such as a car, a semi-truck, a bus” [0055]).
Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang and HORN with the teachings of Yu to incorporate the features of classifying long commercial vehicle so as to gain the advantage of improving object detection. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Ham as modified by Yang and HORN does not appear to explicitly disclose artificial intelligence functionality. Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. Yu discloses wherein, the classification of the in the areas surrounding left right, and rear sides of the vehicle is performed by artificial intelligence functionality (“The embeddings output by radar embeddings NN 510 and the Siamese twin network be can be processed by a classifier network” [0055]) using pre-calculated radar point cloud data (“A set of points within a given frame can be referred to as a ‘point cloud.’”[0020]), the artificial intelligence functionality is making a classification decision, being previously trained by radar system annotation data related to the basic classification categories (“During training, incorrect classification of different objects as the same or the same objects (or objects of the same type) as different can be used to adjust weights and biases of radar embeddings NN” [0056]), wherein the speed of the objects is considered in conjunction with the point cloud radar data in artificial intelligence computation (“ From the radar image, the state of motion of the object can be determined. The state of motion can include a speed of the object, a location of the object, or both.” [0064]).
Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang and HORN with the teachings of Yu to incorporate the features of artificial intelligence functionality so as to gain the advantage of improving safety in autonomies driving [0024, Yu]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN disclose all the limitations of claim 12. Ham as modified by Yang and HORN does not appear to explicitly disclose artificial intelligence functionality. Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. Yu discloses wherein, the classification of the objects is performed by artificial intelligence functionality (“The embeddings output by radar embeddings NN 510 and the Siamese twin network be can be processed by a classifier network” [0055]) using pre-calculated point cloud data (“A set of points within a given frame can be referred to as a ‘point cloud.’”[0020]), wherein the artificial intelligence functionality makes a classification decision, being previously trained by radar system annotation data related to the basic classification categories (“During training, incorrect classification of different objects as the same or the same objects (or objects of the same type) as different can be used to adjust weights and biases of radar embeddings NN” [0056]), wherein the speed of the objects is considered in conjunction with the point cloud radar data in artificial intelligence computation (“ From the radar image, the state of motion of the object can be determined. The state of motion can include a speed of the object, a location of the object, or both.” [0064]).
Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang and HORN with the teachings of Yu to incorporate the features of artificial intelligence functionality so as to gain the advantage of improving safety in autonomies driving [0024, Yu]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN and further modified by Yu disclose all the limitations of claim 13. Ham as modified by Yang and HORN does not appear to explicitly disclose artificial intelligence functionality. Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. Yu discloses wherein, said artificial intelligence functionality is using more than one algorithmic approach: of support vector machines (SVM) with decisions trees (“CRAM 132 can include one or more MLM, such as decision-tree algorithms, support vector machines, deep neural networks, and the like.” [0038]), multiply layer perception (MLP) , convolutional neural network (CNN), and vision transformer (ViT), applied on said radar point cloud data (“ Deep neural networks can include convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks (RNN) with one or more hidden layers, fully connected neural networks, long short-term memory neural networks, Boltzmann machines, and so on.” [0038]).
Yu teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar object classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang and HORN with the teachings of Yu to incorporate the features of artificial intelligence functionality including more than one algorithmic approach so as to gain the advantage of improving radar perception [0031, Yu]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham(US20220119038A1) in view of Yang(US20220190482A1) and HORN(US20220169273A1) and Yu(US20230038842A1) as applied in claim 4 above, and further in view of FOSTER(US20230124314A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ham as modified by Yang and HORN and further modified by Yu disclose all the limitations of claim 4. Ham as modified by Yang, HORN and Yu does not appear to explicitly disclose classifying a three wheel vehicle. FOSTER teaches in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle perception. FOSTER discloses wherein, the basic classification categories include three-wheeler vehicles, whose length does not exceed 3 meters (“the method further includes classifying the motorcycle as a two-wheel motorcycle or a three-wheel motorcycle” [0010]).
FOSTER teaches in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle perception. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ham as modified by Yang and HORN and further modified by Yu with the teachings of FOSTER to incorporate the features of classifying three wheel vehicles so as to gain the advantage of improving vehicle safety [0076, Foster]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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 on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights