DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s submission for Domestic Benefit/National State Information under 35 U.S.C. 371 for PCT/EP2022/055739 with filing date 03/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 35 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0091] introduces the method flow chart as “FIG. 7,” but the flow chart bearing steps S1–S4 is FIG. 8 (see Brief Description [0023] and FIG. 8). FIGS. 7A–B are directed to the Doppler-difference detection principle. Applicant is required to correct the figure reference in [0091].
Reference numeral 102 is used for two different elements: the vehicle “wheels 102” ([0029]; FIG. 1) and a subsurface “plane 102”/road-foundation layer lying a distance d below road surface 101 ([0072-0073]; FIG. 11). A single numeral must designate a single element throughout the disclosure and drawings. Correction is required.
The acronym “TSM” (TSM function 370) is used in [0063], [0085-0089] without being defined at first use. Applicant is required to provide the full term at first occurrence.
Reference numeral 380 is used for “vehicle speed over ground” in [0088] while should be “vehicle speed sensor” [0065-0066], and [0086].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The Claim 1 preamble recites “A radar module …,” but the transitional phrase reads “the system comprising”. The “the system comprising” is understood to be what is recited in the preamble.
The Claims 9 and 12 preambles recite “comprising a radar system according to claim 1”. The specification uses “radar module 110” and “radar system 110” interchangeably (e.g., [0050], [0068]). Applicant should harmonize the terminology (e.g., “a radar module according to claim 1”).
The Claim 13 preamble recites “the method comprising”, which is missing a colon after “comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “program code means for performing the steps of claim 13”. The limitation uses the word “means” (Prong A - presumption raised) modified by functional language “for performing the steps of claim 13 when the program is run on a computer” (Prong B), and recites no structure (Prong C). Section 112(f) is therefore invoked. The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm performing the function — here, the steps of claim 13 ([0091-0092]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to cure a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non -transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes a transitory medium, and thereby is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter. However, to promote compact prosecution, for subject matter eligibility purposes the examiner will treat the claim as if it were directed to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0171069 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 14, claim 1 is directed to a radar module (apparatus), claim 13 to a computer implemented method, and claim 14 to a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 13. The body of claim 13 recites the same functional elements as claim 1, in step form, and claim 14 recites a computer program performing those same steps. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are therefore grouped and the full analysis is presented for claim 1; claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons, as detailed at the end of this section. Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses:
Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses: A radar module configured to determine a two-dimensional velocity vector of a heavy-duty vehicle with respect to a ground plane supporting the vehicle, the system comprising: ([0004]: “An apparatus for radar measurement … includes a transceiver; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver”; [0029]: “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”; [0043]: “it may be desired to estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”). Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s radar sensor (apparatus A100) is disclosed for trucks and tractor-trailers, satisfying the “heavy-duty vehicle” use, and is configured to estimate the ego-velocity vector of the vehicle in more than one direction relative to the road surface on which the vehicle is located, which is the two-dimensional velocity vector with respect to a ground plane supporting the vehicle.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses: a radar transceiver arranged to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array, ([0045]: “Transceiver XC20 also includes a transmit array having n transmit antenna elements TA1, TA2, … TAn”; [0046]: “Transceiver XC20 also includes a receive array having m receive antenna elements RA1, RA2, … RAm that receive the reflected pulses (chirps)”; [0034]: “A transceiver of a vehicular radar sensor emits pulses (e.g., ‘chirps’) and receives reflections of the pulses”). The transceiver XC20 transmits and receives the radar signal via transmit and receive antenna arrays.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses: wherein the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a first direction and in a second direction different from the first direction, ([0045]: “a set of n transmit chains that shapes the generated waveform and drives the transmit array to produce a beam in a desired direction … The waves produced by the antenna elements interfere constructively and destructively (according to the respective phase shifts) to produce a beam in the direction that is currently desired”; [0043]: “measurements of the reflected beam are obtained for three different azimuth angles: one for a beam spot at a bearing of zero azimuth … one for a beam spot at a positive azimuth angle … and one for a beam spot at a negative azimuth angle”). The array illuminates the road surface across plural azimuth directions, including a first direction (e.g., the positive azimuth beam spot) and a second, different direction (e.g., the negative azimuth beam spot), consistent with the construction of “first direction and … second direction” set forth above.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses: the radar module further comprising a processing device arranged to detect first and second radar signal components of the received radar signal based on their respective angle of arrival, AoA, where the first radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the first direction and the second radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the second direction, ([0047]: “processor P20 may be configured to perform a beamforming operation on the digital IF signals to produce one or more receive beams in desired directions … processor P20 may process the m digital IF signals to obtain, for each of one or more different directions of arrival (DOAs), a corresponding composite signal that represents a beam steered in that direction (e.g., a left beam, a center beam, and a right beam as shown in FIG. 5B)”). The processor resolves the received signal into separate components for different directions of arrival (the left and right beams), so that a first received component corresponds to the first direction (e.g., the positive azimuth/right direction) and a second received component corresponds to the second direction (e.g., the negative azimuth/left direction); direction of arrival is the angle of arrival as construed above.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses: wherein the processing device is arranged to determine the two-dimensional velocity vector of the heavy-duty vehicle based on respective Doppler frequencies of the first and second radar signal components. ([0053]: “Processor P10 or transceiver XC10 may be configured to perform a second FFT operation (also called the ‘Doppler FFT’) over the series of range FFT vectors to obtain a two-dimensional array … which indicates the radial velocities of the detected objects”; [0043]: “it may be desired to estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”). The Doppler processing yields the radial velocity associated with each direction-of-arrival beam, and the processor combines the radial velocities measured for the differently-directed beam spots to estimate the components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction — i.e., the two-dimensional velocity vector of the vehicle determined from the respective Doppler frequencies of the first and second received components.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the method counterpart of claim 1: arranging a radar transceiver to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array (Hamilton et al. (‘069) [0045-0046], [0034]); configuring the antenna array to emit the radar signal in a first direction and in a second direction different from the first direction (Hamilton et al. (‘069) [0045], [0043]); detecting first and second radar signal components … based on their respective angle of arrival, AoA … (Hamilton et al. (‘069) [0047]); and determining the two-dimensional velocity vector … based on respective Doppler frequencies of the first and second radar signal components (Hamilton et al. (‘069) [0053], [0043]). Hamilton et al. (‘069) expressly discloses the method form of its apparatus ([0003] reciting a method of radar measurement and Hamilton et al. (‘069) [0072]: “any disclosure of an operation of an apparatus having a particular feature is also expressly intended to disclose a method having an analogous feature”). Claim 13 is therefore anticipated for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 recites “A computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 13 when the program is run on a computer.” Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses computer-readable code for performing its method ([0078]: “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises code which, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform a method of radar measurement as described herein”; [0069]: “The instructions stored in memory 1135 may be configured to cause the processor(s) to perform the radar-related processing described herein”). Claim 14 is therefore anticipated for the same reasons as claim 13.
Regarding Claim 12, Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses the radar system according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses: A heavy-duty vehicle comprising a radar system according to claim 1 ([0029]: “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”; [0061], FIG. 10: “Apparatus A100 may be installed in a vehicle that includes one or more other sensors … FIG. 8 is a perspective view of such an implementation V20 of vehicle V10”). Hamilton et al. (‘069) discloses a vehicle — including a truck/tractor-trailer (heavy-duty vehicle) — in which the radar system (apparatus A100) of claim 1 is installed. Claim 12 is therefore anticipated for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0171069 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: wherein the first direction is a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the second direction is a lateral direction of the vehicle ([0035]: “it may be desired to position transceiver XC10 to receive reflections from the road surface at least mostly along an axis of movement of the vehicle (e.g., in a forward- or rearward-facing direction)”; [0043]: “one for a beam spot at a bearing of zero azimuth (e.g., a reflection from a patch of the road surface that is directly below) … and one for a beam spot at a negative azimuth angle (e.g., a reflection from a patch of the road surface that is below and to the left)”). Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches a beam spot directed along the vehicle’s axis of movement (the longitudinal direction) and beam spots offset in azimuth to the side of that axis (the lateral direction).
Hamilton et al. (‘069) does not state in the same words that the first and second directions are, respectively, the “longitudinal” and “lateral” directions of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to designate Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s zero-azimuth (along-axis-of-movement) beam as the first/longitudinal direction and an off-axis azimuth beam as the second/lateral direction. One would have been motivated to do so because Hamilton et al. (‘069) expressly teaches receiving along the axis of movement to maximize the radial Doppler component of the forward velocity ([0035]) and additionally receiving off-axis beam spots specifically to “estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction” ([0043]); aligning one component with the longitudinal axis and resolving the second component laterally is the direct way to populate the two orthogonal components of the vehicle’s planar velocity that Hamilton et al. (‘069) seeks. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamilton et al. (‘069) already obtains the differently-directed beam spots by the same beamforming operation ([0047]) and resolves their radial velocities by the same Doppler FFT ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: wherein the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a line ([0045]: “The transmit antenna elements TA1, TA2, …, TAn may be arranged as a linear (one-dimensional) array, as a two-dimensional planar array, or in another configuration”; [0046]: “The receive antenna elements RA1, RA2, …, RAm may be arranged as a linear (one-dimensional) array”). Hamilton et al. (‘069) expressly discloses arranging the antenna elements as a linear (one-dimensional) array, i.e., on a line.
To the extent the recited “arranged on a line” is regarded as one of several express alternatives in Hamilton et al. (‘069) rather than an unconditional disclosure, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the linear array configuration that Hamilton et al. (‘069) lists. One would have been motivated to do so because Hamilton et al. (‘069) identifies the linear array as a disclosed implementation for producing a steerable beam from phase-shifted elements ([0045]), and a one-dimensional array is the configuration that provides azimuth (single-plane) beam steering for the road-surface beam spots Hamilton et al. (‘069) requires while minimizing element count and cost. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamilton et al. (‘069) itself identifies the linear array as an operative arrangement of its transmit and receive elements.
Regarding Claim 5, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: wherein the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a two-dimensional grid ([0045]: “The transmit antenna elements TA1, TA2, …, TAn may be arranged as a linear (one-dimensional) array, as a two-dimensional planar array, or in another configuration”; [0046]: “The receive antenna elements RA1, RA2, …, RAm may be arranged as a linear (one-dimensional) array, as a two-dimensional planar array, or in another configuration”). A two-dimensional planar array of antenna elements is a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a two-dimensional grid.
To the extent the recited two-dimensional grid is regarded as one of several express alternatives in Hamilton et al. (‘069), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the two-dimensional planar array Hamilton et al. (‘069) lists. One would have been motivated to do so because Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches steering the beam in both azimuth and elevation ([0038] varying elevation angle; [0043] varying azimuth angle), and a two-dimensional planar array is the configuration that enables beam steering in both of those orthogonal angular dimensions, which Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s alternating object-ranging (elevation toward targets) and ego-velocity (elevation toward the ground) modes require. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamilton et al. (‘069) itself identifies the two-dimensional planar array as an operative arrangement of its elements.
Regarding Claim 6, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: wherein the processing device is arranged to detect the first and second radar signal components over respective distances exceeding a distance from the antenna array to the ground plane ([0030]: “the second beam is directed such that an axis of the second beam intersects a ground plane (e.g., at a distance of not more than ten meters from the transceiver)”; [0036]: “mount the transceiver at a height from the road surface that is in a range of from 30, 40, or 50 to 50, 60, 75, or 100 centimeters”; [0055], FIG. 9: “transceiver XC10 is located fifty centimeters above the road surface, the angle of incidence of the beam is forty-five degrees … the width of the beam spot at the road surface is thirty-six centimeters”). Because Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s ego-velocity beam is incident on the road surface at an oblique angle from a transceiver mounted well above the surface, the slant range over which the road-surface components are detected exceeds the perpendicular transceiver to ground distance.
To the extent Hamilton et al. (‘069) does not state the comparison in the exact terms “exceeding a distance from the antenna array to the ground plane,” it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the recited relationship is satisfied. One would have been motivated so to configure the system because Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches an oblique (e.g., forty-five degree) angle of incidence at the road surface ([0041], [0055]) expressly to increase backscatter strength, and an oblique incidence from an elevated transceiver necessarily places the reflecting road patch at a slant range greater than the perpendicular height. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamilton et al. (‘069) provides concrete geometry (50 cm height, 45° incidence, beam spot up to ten meters away) from which the slant detection range exceeding the perpendicular height follows directly. The combination as a whole meets the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: wherein the processing device is arranged to adjust a setting of the antenna array based on a pre-determined target AoA of the first and second radar signal components ([0045]: “Processor P20 calculates the respective phase shift values based on parameter values such as the beam direction that is currently desired … and a distance between adjacent transmit antenna elements”; [0048]: “digital signal processor P20 calculates the respective phase shift values based on parameter values such as the desired beam direction … and the phase-shifted IF signals are summed such that they interfere constructively and destructively … to produce a beam in the desired direction”). Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s processor sets the antenna array’s phase-shift (beamforming) settings according to the desired beam direction — a predetermined target direction/angle of arrival — for both transmit and receive beams.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) does not in verbatim use the words “pre-determined target AoA”, but it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s “desired beam direction” used to set the array phase shifts is a predetermined target angle for the received components. One would have been motivated to so configure the array because Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches selecting the beam directions (azimuth beam spots) in advance for ego-velocity estimation and then computing the phase-shift settings to steer to those directions ([0045], [0047-0048]); using the intended (target) directions of the road-surface components to set the array is precisely how Hamilton et al. (‘069) forms the desired beams. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamilton et al. (‘069) expressly computes the phase-shift settings from the desired direction parameter.
Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0171069 A1) in view of Kuragaki et al. (US 2004/0138802 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: wherein the first direction and the second direction are configured on respective sides of a bore sight direction of the radar module, where the bore sight direction of the radar module is arranged to be aligned with a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, ([0035]: “to receive reflections from the road surface at least mostly along an axis of movement of the vehicle (e.g., in a forward- or rearward-facing direction)”; [0043]: “one for a beam spot at a positive azimuth angle (e.g., … below and to the right), and one for a beam spot at a negative azimuth angle (e.g., … below and to the left)”). Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s positive-azimuth and negative-azimuth beam spots are on respective sides of the zero-azimuth bore sight, which is aligned with the vehicle’s axis of movement (longitudinal direction).
Hamilton et al. (‘069) does not explicitly teach, but Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches: wherein the processing device is arranged to detect a lateral velocity component of the vehicle based on a difference of the respective Doppler frequencies of the first and second radar signal components ([0040], Eq. 10: “In step S310, the left-right direction speed Vy of the vehicle is calculated” from the two directional ground speeds VR and VL; [0052-0054], Eq. 13: “the left-right direction speed Vy is calculated” as a function of the relative speed information V17 and V18 of the right- and left-pointing radar sensors). Kuragaki et al. (‘802) derives the lateral (left-right) velocity component of the vehicle from the differently-directed Doppler-derived ground speeds measured on opposite sides of the vehicle’s travel direction, i.e., from the difference between the two directional Doppler measurements.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compute Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s lateral ego-velocity component from a difference of the respective Doppler frequencies of the two side-of-bore-sight beam components in the manner taught by Kuragaki et al. (‘802). One would have been motivated to do so because Hamilton et al. (‘069) already acquires Doppler-derived radial velocities for beam spots symmetrically offset to the left and right of the forward axis ([0043], [0053]) and expressly seeks the lateral component of the ego-velocity vector, while Kuragaki et al. (‘802) provides the specific, established geometric relationship by which the left-right (lateral) vehicle speed is recovered from two oppositely-directed Doppler measurements (Eqs. 10 and 13); applying Kuragaki et al. (‘802)’s difference relationship to Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s left and right beam Doppler values is the recognized technique for isolating the lateral component, because the common-mode (longitudinal) contribution cancels and the differential term scales with the lateral speed. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references resolve radial Doppler velocities from road-surface backscatter at known angles relative to the direction of travel, so Kuragaki et al. (‘802)’s trigonometric combination operates on quantities Hamilton et al. (‘069) already computes, requiring no change to the underlying radar hardware.
Regarding Claim 8, Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches the radar module according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) does not explicitly teach obtaining steering-angle data of a wheel or transforming the velocity vector into a coordinate system of the wheel based on that data. Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches: wherein the processing device is arranged to obtain data associated with a steering angle of a wheel of the heavy-duty vehicle, and to transform the two-dimensional velocity vector of the heavy-duty vehicle into a coordinate system of the wheel based on the data associated with the steering angle of the wheel ([0027]: “a steering angle sensor 4 that detects a steering angle”; [0044], step S501: “a steering angle φ is obtained on the basis of an output of the steering angle sensor”; [0022]: “a measured angle of sideslip and a forward-reverse speed (ground speed) are calculated … the braking force of each wheel is varied so that the measured angle of sideslip follows a target angle of sideslip set from the steering angle and the ground speed”). Kuragaki et al. (‘802) obtains the steering angle and uses it, together with the radar-derived two-dimensional ground velocity, to resolve the vehicle motion relative to the steered direction — i.e., it relates the determined velocity vector to the steered-wheel orientation defined by the steering angle.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kuragaki et al. (‘802)’s steering-angle acquisition into Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s ego-velocity radar module and to use the steering angle to transform Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s two-dimensional vehicle velocity vector into the coordinate system of the steered wheel. One would have been motivated to do so because Hamilton et al. (‘069) determines the vehicle velocity vector in the vehicle/transceiver frame ([0043], [0053]) but is silent as to expressing that velocity in the frame of a steered wheel, whereas Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches that the steering angle from a steering-angle sensor is required to relate the vehicle’s ground motion to the steered direction for slip/sideslip-based control ([0022], [0044]); a person of ordinary skill seeking to use Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s velocity for wheel-level control would obtain the steering angle and rotate the velocity vector into the wheel frame, as Kuragaki et al. (‘802)’s use of the steering angle teaches. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the transformation is a rotation of an already-determined planar velocity vector by the measured steering angle, an operation requiring only the steering-angle datum that Kuragaki et al. (‘802) supplies from a conventional steering-angle sensor and no modification to Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s radar measurement.
Regarding Claim 9, Hamilton et al. (‘069) in view of Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches the radar system according to claim 1.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) teaches: A wheel end module for a heavy-duty vehicle, the wheel end module comprising a radar system according to claim 1, ([0029]: “principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”; [0033]: “apparatus A100 (e.g., a radar sensor) … includes a processor P10 communicatively coupled to a transceiver XC10”) — the radar system of claim 1, for use on a heavy-duty (truck/tractor-trailer) vehicle.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) does not explicitly teach a wheel speed sensor that determines a rotational velocity of a wheel, or determining a wheel slip and/or a slip angle from the rotational velocity and the two-dimensional velocity vector. Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches: and a wheel speed sensor arranged to determine a rotational velocity of a wheel on the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the processing device is arranged to determine a wheel slip and/or a slip angle of the wheel based on the rotational velocity of the wheel and on the two-dimensional velocity vector of the heavy-duty vehicle ([0027]: “wheel speed sensors 6, 7, 8 and 9 that detect wheel speeds of wheels”; [0023]: “wheel speed sensors disposed in correspondence to each wheel … the braking force of each wheel being varied … so that each wheel speed sensor measured value follows each target wheel speed set on the basis of the Doppler shift frequency”; [0041], Eq. 11: “the measured angle of sideslip βm is calculated” from the radar-derived traveling-direction and left-right velocity components). Relying on the “slip angle” alternative of the “and/or” limitation and, additionally, the “wheel slip” alternative, Kuragaki et al. (‘802) determines the wheel rotational velocity from wheel speed sensors and determines the sideslip angle/slip of the wheel by comparing the wheel rotational velocity with the radar-derived two-dimensional ground velocity of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Kuragaki et al. (‘802)’s wheel speed sensors to Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s radar module and to determine wheel slip and/or slip angle from the wheel rotational velocity and Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s two-dimensional vehicle velocity vector. One would have been motivated to do so because Hamilton et al. (‘069) itself identifies wheel speed sensors as vehicle sensors whose velocity measurements suffer error “due to tire diameter variations” and “slippage” ([0024]) and proposes its radar ego-velocity precisely as a slip-immune reference, while Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches the complementary step of comparing wheel-speed-sensor rotational velocity against the radar-derived ground velocity to quantify slip/sideslip for vehicle control ([0023], [0041]); combining Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s slip-immune two-dimensional ground velocity with Kuragaki et al. (‘802)’s wheel-speed comparison yields the wheel slip and slip angle directly, which is the recognized purpose of having both a ground-velocity reference and a wheel-rotation measurement. There is a reasonable expectation of success because wheel slip is, by definition, the normalized difference between wheel surface speed (from wheel rotational velocity) and vehicle ground speed, both of which the combined system supplies, and Kuragaki et al. (‘802) demonstrates the computation on a vehicle using radar-derived ground speed and wheel speed sensors.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0171069 A1) in view of Kuragaki et al. (US 2004/0138802 A1), and further in view of Tang (US 7,747,363 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamilton et al. (‘069) in view of Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches the wheel end module according to claim 9.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) and Kuragaki et al. (‘802) do not explicitly teach a control unit for controlling an electric machine or controlling an axle speed of the electric machine based on a target wheel slip. However, Tang (‘363) teaches: comprising a control unit for controlling an electric machine, wherein the processing device is arranged to control an axle speed of the electric machine based on a target wheel slip (col. 1, Summary, lines 55-60: “an electric vehicle drive system … includes an electric motor coupled to at least one wheel of a first axle, a power control module configured to receive motor torque commands and control the motor … and a torque control system”; col. 9, lines 1-19, (FIG. 6 description): “the wheel slip ratio must be compared to a target wheel slip ratio contained within a lookup table … the difference between the computed wheel slip ratio and the target wheel slip ratio yields the computed slip error”; col. 9 (traction-and-stability control), lines 20-58: “the first stage independently minimizes the wheel slip ratio errors using a feedback control system”). Tang’s power control module is a control unit for the electric machine (motor) coupled to an axle, and Tang’s controller regulates the motor — monitored by motor speed sensors (cols. 1-2) and classified as controlling the “traction-motor speed”, so as to drive the axle’s wheel slip to a target wheel slip ratio.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wheel end module of Hamilton et al. (‘069) in view of Kuragaki et al. (‘802) with Tang’s control unit for an electric machine and to control the electric machine’s axle speed based on a target wheel slip. One would have been motivated to do so because the combined system already determines the slip-immune ground velocity (Hamilton et al. (‘069)) and the wheel slip/slip angle (Kuragaki et al. (‘802)) needed as the control reference, and Tang teaches the complementary actuator-side control - regulating an axle-coupled electric machine to maintain wheel slip at a target slip ratio for traction and stability - so that combining them closes the control loop by acting on the very slip quantity the radar-plus-wheel-speed system measures; this directly serves Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s stated purpose of obtaining a slip-immune velocity reference for vehicle control (Hamilton et al. (‘069) [0024-0025]) and the application’s integration of slip determination with slip control. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Tang demonstrates an operative electric-machine traction-control loop that closes on a target wheel slip ratio using wheel-speed and motor-speed sensors of the same kind already present in the combined system, and substituting Hamilton et al. (‘069)’s radar-derived ground velocity for the vehicle-speed term of Tang’s slip computation requires no change to Tang’s control architecture.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0171069 A1) in view of Kuragaki et al. (US 2004/0138802 A1), and further in view of Bando et al. (US 2018/0312170 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hamilton et al. (‘069) in view of Kuragaki et al. (‘802) teaches the wheel end module according to claim 9.
Hamilton et al. (‘069) and Kuragaki et al. (‘802) do not explicitly teach an inertial measurement unit (IMU) whose acceleration values are output to a central vehicle motion management. However, Bando et al. (‘170) teaches: comprising an inertial measurement unit, IMU, wherein the processing device is arranged to output one or more acceleration values to a central vehicle motion management, VMM ([0006]: “a vehicle-body IMU that is mounted to the vehicle body to output acceleration and angular velocity”; Fig. 9 (S903): “MEASURE INERTIAL QUANTITY (ACCELERATION, ANGULAR VELOCITY) IN LOCATION OF VEHICLE-BODY IMU EXPRESSED IN VEHICLE-BODY COORDINATE SYSTEM b”). Bando et al. (‘170)’s vehicle-body IMU outputs acceleration values to the vehicle’s central estimation/control device that manages vehicle motion (a central vehicle motion management).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Bando et al. (‘170)’s vehicle-body IMU to the wheel end module of Hamilton et al. (‘069) in view of Kuragaki et al. (‘802) and to output its acceleration values to a central vehicle motion management. One would have been motivated to do so because the combined system already determines vehicle ground velocity (Hamilton et al. (‘069)) and wheel slip/slip angle (Kuragaki et al. (‘802)) for vehicle-motion control, and Bando teaches that a vehicle-body IMU’s acceleration and angular-velocity outputs are used centrally to convert vehicle-body motion into the road-surface coordinate system and to estimate wheel slip angle (Bando et al. (‘170) Summary; S903–S904); supplying acceleration values from an IMU to the central controller augments the speed and slip information with acceleration data, giving the central vehicle-motion management a more complete description of vehicle motion. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Bando demonstrates an operative vehicle-body IMU on a (heavy construction-machinery) vehicle that outputs acceleration to a central estimation device, and integrating such an off-the-shelf IMU output into the combined system’s existing central controller requires only routing the acceleration values over the vehicle data interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishigami et al. (US 2015/0198697 A1) — A Panasonic radar apparatus installed in a vehicle that uses a single transmit antenna and a receive array antenna to separate reflected-wave components by azimuth angle of arrival, then converts Doppler frequencies to azimuth angles using an estimated vehicle speed vector, in order to detect and locate stationary and moving objects around the vehicle. It is closely related to claim 1’s core architecture — single array antenna, AoA-based separation of received components, and Doppler-frequency processing.
Cao et al. (US 2016/0291143 A1) — A Panasonic vehicle movement estimation device (Kishigami is a co-inventor) that uses a single radar to estimate the radar’s movement velocity and direction from reflections off external objects in its field of view, combines this with a rotational angular velocity estimate, and produces a 2D vehicle movement velocity and direction at an arbitrary prescribed position on the vehicle. It is more directly pointed at the claimed output — a 2D vehicle velocity vector determined by a single radar and explicitly addresses robustness to wheel slip.
Bialer et al. (US 2021/0011150 A1) — A GM system for host vehicle velocity estimation using a wide-aperture radar, which determines relative velocity vectors for detected target objects, clusters them, and estimates the host vehicle velocity vector as an average over the cluster with the largest spatial spread. It relates to claims 1 and 13 on the output side — a 2D velocity vector for the host vehicle derived from radar Doppler — and to claim 12 (vehicle comprising the radar system).
Kasaiezadeh et al. (US 2018/0297605 A1) — A GM system for fault detection in lateral velocity estimation that validates a vehicle’s estimated lateral velocity using existing sensors (EPS torque, steering angle, yaw rate, lateral acceleration), without requiring redundant velocity measurements or knowledge of road/tire conditions. It is related to claims 1–3 in that it addresses the fundamental vehicle-control problem that motivates the claimed invention — the difficulty of accurately knowing lateral velocity for motion management.
Schiffmann et al. (US 2022/0126834 A1) — An Aptiv system that determines vehicle velocity from a RADAR or LIDAR detector’s range-rate output, determines wheel speed from wheel speed sensors, computes wheel slip from their difference per wheel, and uses the wheel slip to estimate road surface friction characteristic. It maps directly onto the claim 9 chain of elements — radar-derived velocity plus wheel speed sensor producing wheel slip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights