DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 7/10/2024. 1/15/2025, and 4/8/2025 have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 6 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 9/14/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 9/14/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claim 4 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the claim objections to Claims 15-16, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. The objection of Claims 15-16 remains as the claims have not been amended.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks for Section A: “The baseline relied upon by the Office is described as "calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range." (Stanley, [0041 ]). What Stanley measures is therefore a characteristic of the road surface and subsurface beneath the vehicle, and not "an environment of the vehicle," as recited in claim 1” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of the cited prior arts that render the claimed subject matter obvious. Further, stating that the precipitation or fluid on the road is not “an environment of the vehicle” is false and untrue. As the term “an environment of the vehicle” appears to mean, using BRI, any environment around a vehicle. In front, behind, over, and even as Stanley states, under. Thus the Office respectfully disagrees and it remains the Office’s stance that it is the both cited arts, together, that render the claimed subject matter obvious.
Applicant further remarks “An intensity or phase of a road surface and subsurface sensed by a ground penetrating radar directed at that surface does not amount to that comparison” and once again the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of the cited prior arts that render the claimed subject matter obvious. Further, stating that the precipitation or fluid on the road is not “an environment of the vehicle” is false and untrue. As the term “an environment of the vehicle” appears to mean, using BRI, any environment around a vehicle. In front, behing, over, and even as Stanley states, under. Further, both cited prior arts disclose comparing values, where Meheen states comparing the radar values such “In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)” where the term weaker implies a comparison to another value. Further, Stanley teaches “Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))”, thus both cited prior art teach comparing values, and Stanley in turn was introduced to better teach a clear weather baseline value. Thus the Office respectfully disagrees and it remains the Office’s stance that it is the both cited arts, together, that render the claimed subject matter obvious.
Applicant remarks for Section A: “Applicant further submits that Stanley's measurement of the road surface is directed to a fundamentally different measurement than the atmospheric assessment of Meheen. Meheen describes that "the electromagnetic waves emitted by the radar system are assessed to determine weather conditions. For example, fog can result in a scattering effect of electromagnetic waves emitted by the radar system in the presence of water droplets. The power of the reflected signals can be used to determine a presence, an absence, and/or a density of a fog." (Meheen, [0052]). The proposed combination would therefore require substituting a road-surface reflection baseline for an atmospheric fog measurement, and the Office has not explained how such a substitution would be made or why it would yield the comparison recited in claim” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Applicant is picking and choosing terms that show the cited prior art in not proper light. Based on applicants remarks, Meheen only teaches measuring fog, but based just on the Abstract, “weather conditions can include fog, sleet, or smog” which all have waterdroplets in the air. Further ¶ 0061 of Meheen states “a weather condition can include fog, rain, sleet, snow, hail, smog, and/or the like” thus the Office again respectfully disagrees.
Finally, Stanley states “The surface characteristic may be at least one of snow, ice, water, mud, slush, sand, and salt” ¶ 0007 and ¶ 0024 “that the ground includes soil, road surface or pavement such as asphalt and concrete layers, gravel, sand and the like, and that the surface of the ground is the interface of the ground with the air, array, fluid, snow, rain, sludge, mud, or free space. In some instances, the surface may also include the surfaces that surround a tunnel, mineshaft, bridge, elevated platform, and/or other passageways through which a vehicle may travel. The term surface region as used herein includes a depth of a layer of a condition or substance on the surface. For example, the surface region may also include what is inside a layer of snow on a road or a layer of mud on the ground and/or part of the ground itself”. Here, again, the environment around the vehicle is being measured, based on radar signals being compared, as the claimed subject matter requires. Therefore, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks for Section A: “Whatever data Stanley collects in clear conditions is a reflection from the road surface and subsurface beneath the vehicle, as described above, and not "radar data representing the environment of the vehicle during clear weather conditions," as recited in claim 2. Nor does Stanley generate a "background radar representation" that "conveys the baseline energy level," as recited in claim 2. The passage relied upon describes only that "[t]he known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range." (Stanley, [0041])” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of the cited prior arts that render the claimed subject matter obvious. Further, stating that the precipitation or fluid on the road is not “an environment of the vehicle” is false and untrue. As the term “an environment of the vehicle” appears to mean, using BRI, any environment around a vehicle. In front, behing, over, and even as Stanley states, under. Further, both cited prior arts disclose comparing values, where Meheen states comparing the radar values such “In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)” where the term weaker implies a comparison to another value. Further, Stanley teaches “Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))”, thus both cited prior art teach comparing values, and Stanley in turn was introduced to better teach a clear weather baseline value. Thus the Office respectfully disagrees and it remains the Office’s stance that it is the both cited arts, together, that render the claimed subject matter obvious.
Applicant remarks for Section A: “Those passages describe only that "Eight to ten seconds of sweeps may provide a large enough response to determine surface characters or conditions," (Stanley, [0042]), and that "spikes in power levels can be ignored, and power level changes over a period of time can be required to dynamically control the one or more vehicle systems." (Meheen, [0076]). A series of antenna sweeps and the ignoring of power spikes do not amount to "measuring cumulative energy of spatial or velocity filters corresponding to the radar representation," as recited in claim 6, to "determining an average energy level based on a plurality of energy levels corresponding to the plurality of radar data sets," as recited in claim 9, or to removing radar data sets by reference to "a particular energy level associated with detection of an object," as recited in claim 10” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, merely stating “your cited art does not do this” without any support as to why are not arguments. To properly respond, the Office states it does, for the cited reasons mapped out to paragraphs and citations previously. It remains the Office’s stance that using BRI with the claimed subject matter, that the combination of both Meheen and Stanley render the claimed subject matter, as previously mapped out, obvious. Thus the Office respectfully disagrees and it remains the Office’s stance that it is the both cited arts, together, that render the claimed subject matter obvious.
Applicant remarks for Section A: “With respect to claim 11, which recites "determining that water is present on a road that the vehicle is traveling upon," the Office relied upon Meheen. (Office Action, page 19). The passage relied upon states that "based on the water droplet concentration levels in the atmosphere, the reflected signal can be attenuated in power. Based on this attenuation, a fog condition and/or an intensity of the fog condition can be determined." (Meheen, [0071]). A fog condition determined from water droplet concentration levels in the atmosphere does not amount to "determining that water is present on a road that the vehicle is traveling upon," as recited in claim 11” and once again, the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of both cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. One could argue that Meheen measures the moistoure level in the air surrounding the vehicle, which would be everywhere, even on the road thus meeting the claims as currently presented. Or further, understanding that Stanley does this very aspect, thus the Office respectfully disagrees and it remains the Office’s stance that it is the both cited arts, together, that render the claimed subject matter obvious.
Applicant remarks for Section A: “Antenna elements disposed on different antenna arrays within a single radar system are not a second radar unit. Nor does Meheen's statement that "[t]he radar system can be mounted on the vehicle in any suitable position(s) for detecting one or more adverse weather conditions" supply these features. (Meheen, [0053]). Mounting a radar system in one or more positions does not disclose "performing a second comparison between an energy level of the second radar representation to the baseline energy level" or "determining whether to adjust the speed of the vehicle further based on the second comparison," as recited in claim 14” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of both cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. Further, what applicants states is “not in a single radar system” without defining what is and what is not a radar system is not prioper. The claims required a second radar unit, and as mapped out previously and again below, Meheen discloses multiple radar units. Even as applicant quotes “In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202." (Meheen, [0055]) and further “In alternative embodiments, one or more antenna elements 202 can be disposed on different antenna arrays” [Meheen, ¶ 0054]. Therefore, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks for Section B: “In any event, Karandikar does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5. Claim 5 recites "determining, based on the comparison, whether the energy level of the radar representation corresponds to road spray caused by a rear wheel of the vehicle." The only disclosure of road spray relied upon by the Office states that "[t]he types of precipitation or precipitation effects for which classes 80 may be defined include rain, sleet, hail, snow, road spray, or the like or any combination or sub-combination thereof." (Karandikar, [0054]). A listing of road spray among types of precipitation effects for which classes may be defined does not amount to determining, based on the comparison, whether the energy level of the radar representation corresponds to "road spray caused by a rear wheel of the vehicle," as recited in claim 5. Karandikar does not attribute road spray to a rear wheel of the vehicle, nor determine road spray from a comparison of an energy level of a radar representation to a baseline energy level” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of all three cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. It appears that applicant is arguing the combinations of the cited 3 priors arts was not proper and the Office respectfully disagrees. As mapped out, broadly, Meheen teaches using sensors, such as lidar, radar, and cameras to determine weather conditions in the environment of a vehicle, basically around it. Meheen further teaches using compare value and intensities to determine this. Stanley, which is also a vehicle system that uses Lidar, Radar, and cameras to determine the weather around a vehicle, yet more clearly stated the baseline being clear weather, as the claims required. Even though both of these systems disclose many types of water droplets in the air, both Meheen and Stanly discloses road spray (just water droplets) or sensors in the back of the vehicle. This is rational as why a third prior art was introduced that teaches this not stated items. For example Karandikar discloses again using Radar, Lidar, and Camera devices to measure moisture in the art, rain or road spray in front and behind the vehicle. Therefore, it’s the combination of the cited three prior arts, as mapped our previously and again below that render the claimed subject matter obvious, and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks for Section B: “In any event, Karandikar does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5. Claim 5 recites " Applicant further notes that the Office relied upon Karandikar for "wherein the radar unit is a rear facing radar located near a rear portion of the vehicle." (Office Action, page 24). The passage relied upon identifies the rearward facing image sensors only as back-up cameras, stating that "[o]ne or more image sensors 14 may be forward facing image sensors 14a, rearward facing image sensors 14b (e.g., one or more back-up cameras)." (Karandikar, [0014]). Karandikar's fusion embodiment is in turn tied to forward facing sensors: "Lidar, camera, radar, sound, and prior high definitions maps or the like output by one or more image sensors 14 (e.g., one or more forward facing image sensors 14a) may be fused." (Karandikar, [0015])” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of all three cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. It appears that applicant is arguing the combinations of the cited 3 priors arts was not proper and the Office respectfully disagrees. As mapped out, broadly, Meheen teaches using sensors, such as lidar, radar, and cameras to determine weather conditions in the environment of a vehicle, basically around it. Meheen further teaches using compare value and intensities to determine this. Stanley, which is also a vehicle system that uses Lidar, Radar, and cameras to determine the weather around a vehicle, yet more clearly stated the baseline being clear weather, as the claims required. Even though both of these systems disclose many types of water droplets in the air, both Meheen and Stanly discloses road spray (just water droplets) or sensors in the back of the vehicle. This is rational as why a third prior art was introduced that teaches this not stated items. For example Karandikar discloses again using Radar, Lidar, and Camera devices to measure moisture in the art, rain or road spray in front and behind the vehicle. Finally, in Karandikar, it states “In certain embodiments, Lidar, camera, radar, sound, and prior high definitions maps or the like output by one or more image sensors 14” [Karandikar, ¶ 0015], thus the sensors are not just cameras, but can be Lidar, Radar, and/or cameras, as the claims require. Therefore, it’s the combination of the cited three prior arts, as mapped our previously and again below that render the claimed subject matter obvious, and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks for Section C: “Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen in view of Stanley and further in view of Zhao. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and is allowable for at least the reasons given above with respect to claim 1. Zhao is relied upon only for "automatically adjusting a threshold distance for following a lead vehicle." (Zhao, [0083]). That adjustment is made "based on the road surface type 126." (Zhao, [0083]). Zhao determines that road surface type by classifying the condition of the road using a neural network model applied to road surface channel images, rather than by "performing a comparison between an energy level of the radar representation to a baseline energy level, wherein the baseline energy level is associated with clear weather conditions," as recited in claim 1. Zhao therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Meheen and Stanley with respect to claim 1” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of all three cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. It appears that applicant is arguing the combinations of the cited 3 priors arts was not proper and the Office respectfully disagrees. As applicant clearly states Zhao teaches that adjustments are made based on the road surface, thus changes in the road surface, such as water, rain, precipitation, as Meheen states would require vehicle changes in response. Therefore, it’s the combination of the cited three prior arts, as mapped our previously and again below that render the claimed subject matter obvious, and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks for Section D: “Ashihara accordingly never determines that water is present on the road, and does not use radar returns to trigger a cleaning operation. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is allowable for at least the same reasons.” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of all three cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. It appears that applicant is arguing the combinations of the cited 3 priors arts was not proper and the Office respectfully disagrees. As applicant clearly states, Ashihara teaches that there is a radome and that based on weather determinations, it is cleaned. This is exactly what the claims require and thus the Office respectfully disagrees. Therefore, it’s the combination of the cited three prior arts, as mapped our previously and again below that render the claimed subject matter obvious, and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks for Section E: “Newman does not teach or suggest these features. The passage relied upon describes "the autonomous driving agent, while the vehicle is parked within a protected environment, such as a garage, determin[ing] from the weather forecast information" the settings to be implemented. (Newman, [0111]). That passage further states that "if the weather forecast information indicates winter-storm-like conditions with freezing temperatures and blowing snow, the autonomous driving agent can proactively alter or implement ... sensitivity settings of the first, second, ... Mth sensors ( e.g., change the sensitivity of the ultrasonic, radar, and lidar sensors to account for the higher noise levels encountered ... " (Newman, [0111]). Newman therefore changes sensor sensitivity from weather forecast information while the vehicle is parked, which does not amount to detecting "degradation at the radar unit based on the comparison," as recited in claim 19” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, it is the combination of all three cited prior arts, that render the claimed subject matter obvious, as mapped out previously and once again below. It appears that applicant is arguing the combinations of the cited 3 priors arts was not proper and the Office respectfully disagrees. As applicant clearly states, Newman teaches changing the sensitivity of the sensors based on weather determinations. Once again, it’s the combination of the cited prior arts, and no single prior art that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. Therefore, it’s the combination of the cited three prior arts, as mapped our previously and again below that render the claimed subject matter obvious, and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
Doppler Information = radar systems may also estimate relative motion of reflective objects based on Doppler frequency shifts in the received reflected signals.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen e al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0219691) in view of Stanley et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0217231).
With respect to Claims 1-2: While Meheen discloses “A method comprising: receiving, at a computing device and from a radar unit coupled to a vehicle, radar data representing an environment of the vehicle” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0052 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (a processor of the vehicle and/or a cloud server can correlate the collected weather data)];
“determining, by the computing device, a radar representation based on the radar data” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (The radar system can be mounted on the vehicle in any suitable position(s) for detecting one or more adverse weather conditions)];
“performing a comparison between an energy level of the radar representation to a baseline energy level” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)];
“based on the comparison, determining whether to adjust a speed of the vehicle” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, intensity of certain vehicle systems can be controlled based on a weather condition. For example, the fog lamps can be adjusted based on the fog condition. Advantageously, the optimal fog lamp intensity can be used to maximize safety for the driver. If certain weather conditions are present that suggest a need to reduce speed, a vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of the vehicle in certain areas and/or prompt the driver to take control of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of a vehicle in response to bad visibility)];
“and controlling the vehicle based on determining whether to adjust the speed of the vehicle” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, intensity of certain vehicle systems can be controlled based on a weather condition. For example, the fog lamps can be adjusted based on the fog condition. Advantageously, the optimal fog lamp intensity can be used to maximize safety for the driver. If certain weather conditions are present that suggest a need to reduce speed, a vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of the vehicle in certain areas and/or prompt the driver to take control of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of a vehicle in response to bad visibility)];
Meheen does not specifically state what the baseline levels for weather determination are being compared to.
Stanley, which is in the same field of invention of weather/water/precipitation determination based on radar data teaches “performing a comparison between an energy level of the radar representation to a baseline energy level” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0041, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))];
“wherein the baseline energy level is associated with clear weather conditions” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0041, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))];
“receiving, from the radar unit, radar data representing the environment of the vehicle during clear weather conditions” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0041, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))];
“and generating a background radar representation based on the radar data representing the environment of the vehicle during clear weather conditions, wherein the background radar representation conveys the baseline energy level” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0041, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stanley into the invention of Meheen to not only include using radar data to determing weather elements and control a vehicle according the measured weather elements as Meheen discloses but to also use a baseline of clear weather for the determination step as taught by Stanley with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Stanley into Meheen to create a more robust system that more easily set a threshold that indicates that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow)” [Stanley, ¶ 0041]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 2, further comprising: storing the background radar representation in memory for subsequent use” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0071 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (he particular threshold can be readily determined by one or ordinary skill in the art and can be, for example, retrieved from a memory of the radar system);
“and wherein the comparison indicates a condition of a road that the vehicle is traveling upon” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0052 and 0061 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (a weather condition can include fog, rain, sleet, snow, hail, smog, and/or the like)].
With respect to Claim 6: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein performing the comparison between the energy level of the radar representation to the baseline energy level comprises” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)];
Meheen does not specifically state what the baseline levels for weather determination are being compared to.
Stanley, which is in the same field of invention of weather/water/precipitation determination based on radar data teaches “wherein performing the comparison between the energy level of the radar representation to the baseline energy level comprises: measuring cumulative energy of spatial or velocity filters corresponding to the radar representation” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0041-0042, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow)];
“and comparing the cumulative energy of spatial or velocity filters to the baseline energy level” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0041-0042, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Eight to ten seconds of sweeps may provide a large enough response to determine surface characters or conditions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stanley into the invention of Meheen to not only include using radar data to determing weather elements and control a vehicle according the measured weather elements as Meheen discloses but to also use a baseline of clear weather for the determination step as taught by Stanley with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Stanley into Meheen to create a more robust system that more easily set a threshold that indicates that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow)” [Stanley, ¶ 0041]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 8: Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the comparison, estimating a quantity of precipitation is present on a road upon which the vehicle is traveling” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, and 0071, 0079 with Figure 5(For example, based on the water droplet concentration levels in the atmosphere, the reflected signal can be attenuated in power. Based on this attenuation, a fog condition and/or an intensity of the fog condition can be determined. If it is determined at block 508 that visibility is less than a certain threshold (e.g. indicating a certain intensity in the fog), then the flow diagram can continue to block 512)];
“and adjusting a constant false alarm rate detection threshold used when processing radar data received from the radar unit” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0072-0073, 0079 with Figure 5 (Advantageously, the fog lighting system can be controlled with a buffer, such as a minimum on time, such that the fog lighting system does not turn off and on in response to flickering reflection readings. In alternative embodiments, signal processing methods can be implemented. For example, a moving average of the visibility levels can be implemented)].
With respect to Claim 9: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a plurality of radar data sets from the radar unit during navigation of the vehicle in a plurality of environments” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0076 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)];
“determining an energy level for each radar data set from the plurality of radar data sets” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0072-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (the power of the received signal can be attenuated based on a water droplet concentration in the atmosphere. For example, the water droplet concentration can be higher in fog conditions than in non-fog conditions. Thus, the received signal can be attenuated in accordance with a higher water droplet concentration. In addition, the power attenuation can be used as an indication of the intensity of the weather condition)];
“determining an average energy level based on a plurality of energy levels corresponding to the plurality of radar data sets” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0072-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figure 6 (a power measurement diagram over time for determining weather conditions according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the power measurements can be determined. As shown, the power levels increased and stayed at the increased power level for a certain time period. After the power levels increased for a certain time period, the one or more vehicle systems can be dynamically controlled, such as the example disclosed in FIG. 5. Advantageously, spikes in power levels can be ignored, and power level changes over a period of time can be required to dynamically control the one or more vehicle systems)];
Meheen does not specifically state what the baseline levels for weather determination are being compared to.
Stanley, which is in the same field of invention of weather/water/precipitation determination based on radar data teaches “generating a background radar representation based on the average energy level, wherein the background radar representations conveys the baseline energy level” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0041-0042, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow) and (For example, data from a precipitation condition surface characteristic (e.g., a wet, icy, or snow day) may be used as a baseline to make calculations and correlations to determine dry or wet surface characteristics or conditions. Thus, determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a precipitation condition surface characteristic and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stanley into the invention of Meheen to not only include using radar data to determing weather elements and control a vehicle according the measured weather elements as Meheen discloses but to also use a baseline of clear weather for the determination step as taught by Stanley with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Stanley into Meheen to create a more robust system that more easily set a threshold that indicates that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow)” [Stanley, ¶ 0041]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 10: Meheen discloses “The method of claim 9, further comprising: removing one or more radar data sets having a given energy level that exceeds a threshold energy level” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0072-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figure 6 (a power measurement diagram over time for determining weather conditions according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the power measurements can be determined. As shown, the power levels increased and stayed at the increased power level for a certain time period. After the power levels increased for a certain time period, the one or more vehicle systems can be dynamically controlled, such as the example disclosed in FIG. 5. Advantageously, spikes in power levels can be ignored, and power level changes over a period of time can be required to dynamically control the one or more vehicle systems)];
“wherein the threshold energy level is based on a particular energy level associated with detection of an object” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0072-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figure 6 (a power measurement diagram over time for determining weather conditions according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the power measurements can be determined. As shown, the power levels increased and stayed at the increased power level for a certain time period. After the power levels increased for a certain time period, the one or more vehicle systems can be dynamically controlled, such as the example disclosed in FIG. 5. Advantageously, spikes in power levels can be ignored, and power level changes over a period of time can be required to dynamically control the one or more vehicle systems)];
“and wherein determining the average energy level comprises: determining the average energy level after removing the one or more radar data sets” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0072-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figure 6 (a power measurement diagram over time for determining weather conditions according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the power measurements can be determined. As shown, the power levels increased and stayed at the increased power level for a certain time period. After the power levels increased for a certain time period, the one or more vehicle systems can be dynamically controlled, such as the example disclosed in FIG. 5. Advantageously, spikes in power levels can be ignored, and power level changes over a period of time can be required to dynamically control the one or more vehicle systems)].
With respect to Claim 11: Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the comparison, that a difference between the energy level of the radar representation and the baseline energy level exceeds a threshold difference” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0071-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figure 6 (For example, based on the water droplet concentration levels in the atmosphere, the reflected signal can be attenuated in power. Based on this attenuation, a fog condition and/or an intensity of the fog condition can be determined. If it is determined at block 508 that visibility is less than a certain threshold (e.g. indicating a certain intensity in the fog), then the flow diagram can continue to block 512. The particular threshold can be readily determined by one or ordinary skill in the art and can be, for example, retrieved from a memory of the radar system)];
“and based on the difference exceeding the threshold difference, determining that water is present on a road that the vehicle is traveling upon” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0071-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figure 6 (For example, based on the water droplet concentration levels in the atmosphere, the reflected signal can be attenuated in power. Based on this attenuation, a fog condition and/or an intensity of the fog condition can be determined. If it is determined at block 508 that visibility is less than a certain threshold (e.g. indicating a certain intensity in the fog), then the flow diagram can continue to block 512. The particular threshold can be readily determined by one or ordinary skill in the art and can be, for example, retrieved from a memory of the radar system)].
With respect to Claim 14: While Meheen discloses “wherein the radar unit is a first radar unit coupled to the vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from a second radar unit coupled to the vehicle, second radar data representing the environment of the vehicle;” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0076 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)];
“determining a second radar representation based on the second radar data” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055, 0072-0073, 0076, and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (the power of the received signal can be attenuated based on a water droplet concentration in the atmosphere. For example, the water droplet concentration can be higher in fog conditions than in non-fog conditions. Thus, the received signal can be attenuated in accordance with a higher water droplet concentration. In addition, the power attenuation can be used as an indication of the intensity of the weather condition)];
“performing a second comparison between an energy level of the second radar representation to the baseline energy level” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)];
“and wherein determining to adjust the speed of the vehicle comprises: determining whether to adjust the speed of the vehicle further based on the second comparison” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, intensity of certain vehicle systems can be controlled based on a weather condition. For example, the fog lamps can be adjusted based on the fog condition. Advantageously, the optimal fog lamp intensity can be used to maximize safety for the driver. If certain weather conditions are present that suggest a need to reduce speed, a vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of the vehicle in certain areas and/or prompt the driver to take control of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of a vehicle in response to bad visibility)];
Meheen does not specifically state what the baseline levels for weather determination are being compared to.
Meheen does not specifically state what the baseline levels for weather determination are being compared to.
Stanley, which is in the same field of invention of weather/water/precipitation determination based on radar data teaches “performing a second comparison between an energy level of the second radar representation to the baseline energy level” [Stanley, ¶ 0008, 0041, 0044, 0046, and 0049 with Figures 6 and 8 (Determining the surface characteristic may alternatively or additionally include calculating 118 a difference between a known intensity or phase of a clear surface characteristic (e.g., no precipitation or fluid on a road) and the measured intensity or phase of the response signal. The known intensity of a clear surface characteristic may be a baseline number or range. By isolating the response to the area at and surrounding the road surface, given a known (or measured) road surface reflection, a threshold may be set to indicate that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow))].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stanley into the invention of Meheen to not only include using radar data to determing weather elements and control a vehicle according the measured weather elements as Meheen discloses but to also use a baseline of clear weather for the determination step as taught by Stanley with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Stanley into Meheen to create a more robust system that more easily set a threshold that indicates that the reflection is higher than expected and may translate into surface condition changes (e.g., such as snow)” [Stanley, ¶ 0041]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 17-18: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-3. The system taught/disclosed in Claims 17-18 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-3. Therefore Claims 17-18 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-3. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 20 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-3. Therefore Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen e al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0219691) in view of Stanley et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0217231) and in further view of Karandikar et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0099646)
With respect to Claim 5: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the radar unit is a front facing radar located near a front portion of the vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the comparison, whether the energy level of the radar representation corresponds to road spray” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (The radar system can be mounted on the vehicle in any suitable position(s) for detecting one or more adverse weather conditions)];
Meheen does not specifically state that the radar can face backwards, rather all examples of the radar system are located in the front.
Karandikar, which is also a precipitation measuring system for a vehicle more clearly discloses a rearward facing system and teaches “wherein the radar unit is a rear facing radar located near a rear portion of the vehicle” [Karandikar, ¶ 0014-0015 and 0054 with Figure 1 (rearward facing image sensors 14b (e.g., one or more back-up cameras)];
“and wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the comparison, whether the energy level of the radar representation corresponds to road spray caused by a rear wheel of the vehicle” [Karandikar, ¶ 0014-0015, 0054, and 0058 with Figures 1-5 (The types of precipitation or precipitation effects for which classes 80 may be defined include rain, sleet, hail, snow, road spray, or the like or any combination or sub-combination thereof)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Karandikar into the invention of Meheen to not only include using radar data to determing weather elements in front of a vehicle and control a vehicle according the measured weather elements as Meheen discloses but to also use sensors in the rear of the vehicle to measure road spray as taught by Karandikar with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Karandikar into Meheen to create a more robust system that can detect precipitation all around a vehicle, in the environment, not just in front of the vehicle [Karandikar, Abstract]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen e al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0219691) in view of Stanley et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0217231) and in further view of Zhao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0032946).
With respect to Claim 7: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the vehicle based on determining whether to adjust the speed of the vehicle comprises: adjusting a speed when another vehicle is traveling in front of the vehicle” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (Based on the weather condition, the cruise control system 704 can control the speed at which the vehicle is traveling, such as to reduce speed in hazardous conditions)];
Meheen does not specifically state that a following distance can also be controlled.
Zhao, which is also a road condition classification system for a vehicle with vehicle controls based on road types identification and teaches “adjusting a speed and a following distance maintained by the vehicle when another vehicle is traveling in front of the vehicle” [Zhao, ¶ 0083 (In addition, in certain embodiments, control of vehicle movement may also be automatically be implemented and/or adjusted based on the road surface type 126, based on instructions provided by the processor 142. For example, in certain embodiments, automatic braking, automatic steering, and/or one or more other vehicle functions may be implemented based at least in part on the road surface type 126 in accordance with instructions provided by the processor 142. By way of continued example, one or more automatic braking thresholds and/or automatic steering thresholds (e.g., pertaining to a distance to object or time to object, and so on) may be adjusted based on the road surface type 126, and so on. In addition, in certain embodiments, one or more other automatic driving actions may also be performed automatically via instructions provided by the processor 142, such as (by way of example) revising a selected route of travel, changing one or more other driving parameters, modes, and/or thresholds (e.g., by automatically adjusting a speed of the vehicle, automatically adjusting a threshold distance for following a lead vehicle and/or one or more actions for controlling movement of the vehicle 100)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao into the invention of Meheen to not only use road conditions for vehicle control variables for vehicles such as windshield wipers, brakes, steering and speed control as Meheen discloses but to also control vehicle following distance based on road types as taught by Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Zhao into Meheen to create a more robust system that can control many aspects of the vehicle based on road conditions, thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen e al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0219691) in view of Stanley et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0217231) and in further view of Ashihara (United States Patent 6,414,623).
With respect to Claim 12: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 11, further comprising: based on determining that water is present on the road, triggering a cleaning operation” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (For example, a vehicle's windscreen wiper system can engage the windscreen wipers in response to a determination of wet weather)];
“wherein the cleaning operation involves using a wiper” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (For example, a vehicle's windscreen wiper system can engage the windscreen wipers in response to a determination of wet weather)];
Meheen does not specifically state that the system has a radome or that the wipers are for the radome are controlled based on weather, rather just window wipers are controlled based on weather.
Ashihara, which is also a road condition classification system for a vehicle with vehicle controls based on road types identification and teaches “further comprising: based on determining that water is present on the road, triggering a cleaning operation at a radome associated with the radar unit, wherein the cleaning operation involves applying heat to a surface of the radome or using a wiper or an air-blower at the radome” [Ashihara, Col 11 lines 1-33 with Figure 2 (The water counter is incremented. At this time, it is supposed that the ice counter value exceeds the threshold value in the time of running pattern 6 (Step S50). The sensitivity degradation determining section 51b determines that the sensitivity degradation of the radar apparatus is caused. Subsequently, an warning message is displayed on the display section 75 at a step S60. For example, the warning message is displayed until the ice counter value becomes less than the threshold value due to the operation of the radome heater. Thus, it is notified to the driver of the vehicle that the sensitivity degradation of the radar apparatus is caused. Also, the heater control signal and/or the radome wiper control signal are outputted from the sensitivity degradation determining section 51b to the radome heater control unit 71 and the radome wiper control unit 72, respectively)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ashihara into the invention of Meheen to not only use road conditions for vehicle control variables for vehicles such as windshield wipers, brakes, steering and speed control as Meheen discloses but to also control cleaning of the sensors themselves when water is detected as taught by Ashihara with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ashihara into Meheen to create a more robust system that can increase sensors accuracy and vision when weather elements are detected, such as melting snow around a sensor [Ashihara, Col 11 lines 1-33]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 13: Meheen discloses “The method of claim 12, further comprising: modifying a map to convey that a location of the vehicle includes water present on the road” [Meheen ¶ 0009-0010, 0045-0053, 0064 and 0079 (Vehicles can communicate with one another and/or to a cloud server that indicates the location of the weather condition. Advantageously, the weather data can be sent to a server for mapping the location of potential weather-based driving hazards, such as sleet or fog, and/or can be shared to with other vehicles on the road at block 318)];
“and providing, based on modifying the map, the map to a remote computing system” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053, 0064 and 0079 (Vehicles can communicate with one another and/or to a cloud server that indicates the location of the weather condition. Advantageously, the weather data can be sent to a server for mapping the location of potential weather-based driving hazards, such as sleet or fog, and/or can be shared to with other vehicles on the road at block 318)];
“wherein the remote computing system is configured to distribute the map to a plurality of vehicles” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053, 0064 and 0079 (Vehicles can communicate with one another and/or to a cloud server that indicates the location of the weather condition. Advantageously, the weather data can be sent to a server for mapping the location of potential weather-based driving hazards, such as sleet or fog, and/or can be shared to with other vehicles on the road at block 318)].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen e al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0219691) in view of Stanley et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0217231) and in further view of Newman (United States Patent Publication 2018/0203443).
With respect to Claim 19: While Meheen discloses “The system of claim 17, wherein the computing device is further configured to: detect degradation at the radar unit based on the comparison” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, intensity of certain vehicle systems can be controlled based on a weather condition. For example, the fog lamps can be adjusted based on the fog condition. Advantageously, the optimal fog lamp intensity can be used to maximize safety for the driver. If certain weather conditions are present that suggest a need to reduce speed, a vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of the vehicle in certain areas and/or prompt the driver to take control of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle's cruise control system can reduce the speed of a vehicle in response to bad visibility)];
“and adjust the vehicle when processing sensor data received from the radar unit.” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0053 and 0077-0098 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (the one or more vehicle systems can include a collision avoidance system 724, a safety system 720, and/or a sensor system 710. The collision avoidance system 724 can include a precrash system, a forward collision warning system, a collision mitigation system, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the safety system 720 can include driver assistance, such as emergency brake assistance systems, obstacle detection sensor systems, traction control systems, anti-lock braking systems, lane departure warning systems, and/or the like. Advantageously, the collision avoidance system 724, the safety system 720, a sensor system 710, and/or other vehicle systems can become more sensitive to data when a hazardous weather condition is detected. For example, data from LiDAR, radar, and/or cameras can be assessed in further detail and/or have lower thresholds to trigger certain actions in light of a weather condition.)];
Meheen does not specifically state that the Radar becomes more sensitive, rather the vehicle systems can become more sensitive.
Newman, which is also a vehicle control system, teaches “wherein the computing device is further configured to: detect degradation at the radar unit” [Newman, ¶ 0111 (if the weather forecast information indicates winter-storm-like conditions with freezing temperatures and blowing snow)];
“and adjust sensitivity when processing sensor data received from the radar unit” [Newman, ¶ 0111 ((e.g., change the sensitivity of the ultrasonic, radar, and lidar sensors to account for the higher noise levels encountered during a snow storm)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Newman into the invention of Meheen to not only use road conditions for vehicle control variables for vehicles such as windshield wipers, brakes, steering and speed control as Meheen discloses but to also adjust sensor sensitivity based on weather factors as taught by Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Newman into Meheen to create a more robust system that can “account for the forecasted weather conditions” [Newman, ¶ 0111]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meheen e al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0219691) in view of Stanley et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0217231) and in further view of Hassen (United States Patent Publication 2010/0309041).
With respect to Claim 21: While Meheen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the radar representation based on the radar data comprises: determining a radar image; and determining that the energy level of the radar image exceeds and level by at least a threshold energy level” [Meheen ¶ 0045-0055 and 0079 with Figures 2a-2b and 7 (In some embodiments, the one or more antenna elements 202 can transmit an electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal can be reflected from weather conditions 204. A weaker, back-scattered wave can be reflected off the weather condition 204 and received by the one or more antenna elements 202)];
Meheen does not specifically state that baseline levels or using Doppler information.
Hassen, which is also a vehicle control system, teaches “wherein determining the radar representation based on the radar data comprises: determining a radar image representing range and Doppler information for a field of view of the radar unit” [Hassen, ¶ 0035 and 0052 (the echo times and Doppler shifts that occur in the process are used in radar sensors to determine the distance and relative speed of the object)];
“and wherein performing the comparison between the energy level of the radar representation to the baseline energy level comprises: determining that the energy level of the radar image exceeds the baseline energy level by at least a threshold energy level” [Hassen, ¶ 0035 and 0052 (By analyzing the increase of at least one of the spectral power densities, it is possible to determine a density of the homogenously distributed medium, i.e., a rain intensity, for example, with the aid of a radar-signal damping. The increase may follow from a comparison of current background noise to a stored reference background noise. The radar signal damping indicates how strongly a radar signal is damped by the precipitation)];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hassen into the invention of Meheen to not only use precipitation or water in the air for vehicle control variables for vehicles such as windshield wipers, brakes, steering and speed control as Meheen discloses but to also radars that use doppler information with energy levels compared to baseline values as taught by Hassen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hassen into Meheen to create a more robust system that can account for objects and precipitations with the same radar system”. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using radar data for weather condition determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 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 allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights