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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/06/2024.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the system”, which appears to be a typographical error intended to read “the radar module”, similar to what is introduced prior in the preamble and used in dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 17 and 20 recite “radar system”, which appears intended to read “radar module”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 21:
Claim 1:
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:
a radar transceiver arranged to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array,
wherein the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a first azimuth direction
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 of the second detected radar signal component
Claim 21:
A computer implemented method for determining a two-dimensional velocity vector of a heavy-duty vehicle with respect to a ground plane supporting the vehicle, the method comprising:
arranging a radar transceiver to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array,
configuring the antenna array to emit the radar signal in a first azimuth direction and in a second azimuth direction different from the first azimuth direction,
detecting first and second radar signal components of the received radar signal, by a processing device, based on their respective angle of arrival, AoA, where the first radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the first azimuth direction and the second radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the second azimuth direction, and
determining the two-dimensional velocity vector of the heavy-duty vehicle based on respective Doppler frequencies of the first and second radar signal components
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. Claim 21 recites a series of steps by a computer implemented method and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“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 of the second detected radar signal component”
The focus of the claim (i.e., determine the two-dimensional velocity vector) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (algorithms, spatial relationships, coordinate transformations, residual/ interpolation, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Yes. Claim 21 recites the limitations of:
“determining the two-dimensional velocity vector of the heavy-duty vehicle based on respective Doppler frequencies of the first and second radar signal components”
The focus of the claim (i.e., determining the two-dimensional velocity vector) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (algorithms, spatial relationships, coordinate transformations, residual/ interpolation, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation(s) of “a radar transceiver arranged to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array, wherein the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a first azimuth direction
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation(s) of “arranging a radar transceiver to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array, configuring the antenna array to emit the radar signal in a first azimuth direction and in a second azimuth direction different from the first azimuth direction, detecting first and second radar signal components of the received radar signal, by a processing device, based on their respective angle of arrival, AoA, where the first radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the first azimuth direction and the second radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the second azimuth direction” of claim 21 is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely is used to perform the abstract idea, and is merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concepts of claims 1/21.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concepts of claim 1/21 does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1/21 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 21 are ineligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 21:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 2 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 3 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 3 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 4 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 5 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 6 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 7 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 8 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 10 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 11 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 11 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 13 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 13 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 14 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 14 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 16 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 16 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 17 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 19 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 20 recites a module, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 20 is ineligible.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 22 recites a series of steps by a computer implemented method and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 21 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites: “A computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 21 when the program is run on a computer”, which appears to be directed to software per se as it is directed to a product that does not have a physical or tangible form. Structural recitations are required. The recitation of "non-transitory code" would not cure the deficiency but further raises question as to what is a "non-transitory code". Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. V. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 7, however the subject matter of “determined accuracy metrics” is introduced in claim 8. It is therefore apparent to the Examiner that claim 9 is intended to depend on claim 8 and the existing dependency is a typographical error. For the purposes of this examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 7, 10-15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US 20220171069 A1), hereinafter Hamilton.
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton 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 (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0029] “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”, [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself,”, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”):
a radar transceiver arranged to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array (See at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0044] “implementation XC20 of transceiver XC10”, [0045] “Transceiver XC20 also includes a transmit array having n transmit antenna elements”, [0046] “Transceiver XC20 also includes a receive array having m receive antenna elements”),
wherein the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a first azimuth direction and in a second azimuth direction different from the first azimuth direction (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] measurements of the reflected beam are obtained for three different azimuth angles: 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), one for a beam spot at a positive azimuth angle (e.g., a reflection from a patch of the road surface that is below and to the right), and one for a beam spot at a negative azimuth angle […] estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”), the radar module further comprising a processing device (See at least Fig. 1B. Item P10, [0033] “Processor P10 (e.g., one or more processors, which may include one or more digital signal processors) is configured to transmit, via transceiver XC10, a first beam having a first frequency characteristic; to calculate, based on information from at least one reflection of the first beam, a distance between transceiver XC10 and a moving object”) 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 azimuth direction and the second radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the second azimuth direction (See at least [0047] “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)”),
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 of the second detected radar signal component (See at least [0031] “the radar may be configured to maximize the use of the Doppler measurements for ego localization (e.g., to have a high PRF). The system switches between the environment-sensing mode and the ego-velocity mode several times per second”, [0044] “In other examples, transceiver XC10 may be implemented as part of a pulse-Doppler sensor” See also [0043])
Regarding claim 7, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously or sequentially covering a range of elevation directions (See at least [0038] “A transceiver of a vehicular radar sensor may be configured to transmit a wide beam (also called a “fan beam”) at an elevation angle that may be varied over time. FIG. 3A shows examples of different elevation angles ranging from about −45 degrees to about +45 degrees relative to horizontal. Such a beam may have a width in a range of, for example, from 60, 90, or 120 to 120, 150, or 180 degrees and a height in a range of, for example, from five, 10, 20, or 25 to 25, 30, 35, or 45 degrees, and either or both of the width and height may be varied over time. Steering of the beam from one elevation angle to another”).
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
the first azimuth direction is a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the second azimuth direction is a lateral direction of the vehicle (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “transceiver XC10 to receive information from multiple receive beam spots (e.g., from a plurality of different patches of the road surface) for ego-velocity estimation. For example, it may be desired to estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction. FIG. 5B shows an example in which measurements of the reflected beam are obtained for three different azimuth angles: 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), one for a beam spot at a positive azimuth angle (e.g., a reflection from a patch of the road surface that is below and to the right),”).
Regarding claim 11, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
the first azimuth direction and the second azimuth 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, 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 (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”, [0031] “the radar may be configured to maximize the use of the Doppler measurements for ego localization (e.g., to have a high PRF). The system switches between the environment-sensing mode and the ego-velocity mode several times per second”, [0044] “In other examples, transceiver XC10 may be implemented as part of a pulse-Doppler sensor”).
Regarding claim 12, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a line (See at least [0045] “The transmit antenna elements TA1, TA2, . . . , TAn may be arranged as a linear (one-dimensional) array”).
Regarding claim 13, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a two- dimensional grid (See at least [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”).
Regarding claim 14, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
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 along a bore sight direction of the antenna array (See at least Fig. 9, [0055] “FIG. 9 shows an example in which transceiver XC10 is located fifty centimeters above the road surface, the angle of incidence of the beam is forty-five degrees, and the receive beam has a width of twenty degrees.” Hamilton discloses a variety of elevation angles, and as an example the transceiver having a height of fifty centimeters with a bore sight direction of 70 centimeters).
Regarding claim 15, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 1A, [0030] “Based on information from at least one reflection of the first beam, task T20 calculates a distance between the transceiver and a moving object. Task T30 transmits, via a transceiver, a second beam having a second frequency characteristic that is different than the first frequency characteristic, wherein 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). The first frequency characteristic and the second frequency characteristic may be, for example, a pulse bandwidth, a pulse duration, a pulse repetition rate, or a pulse shape.” See also [0043]).
Regarding claim 20, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton additionally discloses
A heavy-duty vehicle comprising a radar system (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0029] “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”).
Regarding claim 21, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 22, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Hamilton additionally discloses
A computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 21 when the program is run on a computer (See at least [0062] “FIG. 11 illustrates an example computer system 1100 that may be utilized with and/or incorporate one or more electronic components of apparatus A100”, [0069] “The memory 1135 may comprise a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors of computer system 1100 (e.g., processing units 1110). Such instructions may be stored as program code”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kishigami (US 20150198697 A1), hereinafter Kishigami.
Regarding claim 2, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton further discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal over a range of azimuth directions (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] measurements of the reflected beam are obtained for three different azimuth angles”, [0045] “Transceiver XC20 also includes a transmit array having n transmit antenna elements”), and
Hamilton does not explicitly disclose where the processing device is arranged to evaluate received radar signal power over the range of azimuth directions, and to detect the first and the second radar signal components as radar signal components associated with radar signal power that satisfies an acceptance criterion. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
where the processing device is arranged to evaluate received radar signal power over the range of azimuth directions, and to detect the first and the second radar signal components as radar signal components associated with radar signal power that satisfies an acceptance criterion (See at least [0149] “object detection unit 26 performs comparison of the power profile F.sub.out(k, f.sub.s, .theta..sub.u, w) obtained from the moving object azimuth estimation unit 24 in the w-th Np.times.Nc transmit periods Tr with a predetermined threshold value, or adaptive threshold decision (for example, CFAR) on the power profile F.sub.out(k, f.sub.s, .theta..sub.u, w) obtained from the moving object azimuth estimation unit 24” See also [0148]-[0150]. Kishigami discloses comparing power profiles of multiple objects against a threshold (acceptance criterion) for azimuth based data)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the power system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0010] “One non-limiting and exemplary embodiment provides a radar apparatus that reduces incorrect estimations caused by side lobes and grating lobes occurring in the azimuth direction to improve the accuracy of object detection in estimation of the azimuth angle of an object using a receive array antenna.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hamilton and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Hamilton further discloses
a set of discrete azimuth directions constitutes the range of azimuth directions or where the range of azimuth directions is a continuous range of azimuth directions (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0042] “A vehicular radar sensor is typically configured to receive a reflected beam over a wide azimuth angle and may be configured to process the received signal to create multiple receive beams having different respective widths and/or directions. FIG. 5A shows examples of different azimuth angles ranging from about −45 degrees to about plus 45 degrees relative to the forward axis.” See also [0055]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kurono (US 20240192302 A1), hereinafter Kurono.
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton does not explicitly disclose the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously covering the range of azimuth directions. However, Kurono, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously covering the range of azimuth directions (See at least Fig. 2, [0035] “The transmitting antennas Tx1, Tx2, and Tx3 simultaneously and repeatedly transmit transmitted waves to predetermined transmitting azimuths based on the transmission signals supplied by the processor 30”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the transmission system disclosed by Kurono. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0043] “the transmission azimuth of the transmitted wave coincides with the receiving azimuth of the reflected wave (i.e., the azimuth in which the reflected wave arrives), the radar system 100 can estimate the azimuth with high resolution and accuracy”).
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Slobodyanyuk (US 20220390582 A1), hereinafter Slobodyanyuk.
Regarding claim 5, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton does not explicitly disclose the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe which is more narrow than the range of azimuth directions, and to sweep the transmission lobe over the range of azimuth directions. However, Slobodyanyuk, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe which is more narrow than the range of azimuth directions, and to sweep the transmission lobe over the range of azimuth directions (See at least [0019] “two-dimensional antenna arrays to sweep FoVs associated with the vehicles. For example, the antenna array for a vehicle may beamform (e.g., in analog or digital) and sweep a beam back-and-forth across the FoV to detect objects”, [0042] “antenna(s) 295 to sweep a radio beam along an axis of an associated plane”, [0063] “scans from the azimuthal radar 403” Slobodyanyuk discloses an improvement on two-dimensional radar arrays as a one-dimensional radar array (azimuthal) radar based on scans/sweeps).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the transmission system disclosed by Slobodyanyuk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy, reduce power consumption, and lower processing overhead (See at least [0021] “The one-dimensional radar arrays can achieve higher accuracy with less power consumption and lower processing overhead as compared with two-dimensional radar arrays, as well as being less expensive to manufacture.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hamilton and Slobodyanyuk, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Hamilton further discloses
the antenna array comprises a transmit portion and a receive portion arranged spatially separated from the transmit portion (See at least Figs. 6A-6B [0044] “The transmitter portion XC20A and receive portion XC20B may be implemented on the same substrate or on different substrates”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kulesh (US 20200233066 A1), hereinafter Kulesh.
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton further discloses
(See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself,”).
Hamilton does not explicitly disclose the processing device is arranged to determine respective accuracy metrics for the first and second
the processing device is arranged to determine respective accuracy metrics for the first and second (See at least [0033] “the processing circuitry refines the at least one accuracy metric as a function of at least one of an indication of power or distance sensed in optically received signals by changing one or more of the bin widths of the plurality of different sub-histograms” The Examiner notes that optical signals of Kulesh are analogous to radar signals).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the accuracy metric system disclosed by Kulesh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability (See at least [0033] “to optimize or improve detection reliability of one or more distal ones of the physical objects”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kulesh, in further view of Chen (US 20220196798 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Hamilton and Kulesh, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 (The Examiner notes that claim 9 is objected to incorrect dependence on claim 7). The combination of Hamilton and Kulesh does not explicitly disclose the processing device is arranged to control transmission of the radar signal in dependence of the determined accuracy metrics. However, Chen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the processing device is arranged to control transmission of the radar signal in dependence of the determined accuracy metrics (See at least [0112] “the system 301 may include a feedback controller 316, which may be configured to determine a plurality of reconfigurable radio parameters 317, for example, based on output 318 of the radar processor 309. The reconfigurable radio parameters 317 may include a waveform, a modulation, a center frequency, a bandwidth, a polarization, a beamforming directivity, phase and/or amplitude values, e.g., control signals to the radar frontend, for example a radiofrequency lens, antennas, transmitters”, [0075] “Reinforcement learning models may include positive or negative feedback to improve accuracy.” See also [0219] Chen discloses a feedback model based on accuracy where transmission is controlled based on a looping feedback/accuracy).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the accuracy metric system disclosed by Kulesh with the transmission system disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0075] “Reinforcement learning models may include positive or negative feedback to improve accuracy.”).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kasaiezadeh (US 20180297605 A1) hereinafter Kasaiezadeh.
Regarding claim 16, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Kasaiezadeh, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 3, [0060] “steering angle δ.sub.sw (18 and 22)and mapped longitudinal and lateral velocities from the vehicles' center of gravity (CG) into the tire (wheel 106) coordinates”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the coordinate system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently gather data (See at least [0004] “Accordingly, an improved system and method for validating vehicle lateral velocity estimation is desirable. The improved system and method employ an efficient real-time validation algorithm that is robust to road uncertainties and does not require redundant estimations or measurements.”).
Regarding claim 17, Hamilton, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hamilton further discloses
A wheel end module for a heavy-duty vehicle, the wheel end module comprising a radar system according to claim 1, and a wheel speed sensor arranged to determine a rotational velocity of a wheel on the heavy-duty vehicle (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0029] “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”, [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself,”, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”, [0024] “wheel speed sensors”),
Hamilton does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Kasaiezadeh, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 3, [0060] “slip angles α (20, 24, 38, and 40) are determined for each wheel 106, as well as their magnitude average, α.sub.m. […] These values are determined based on the vehicle's geometry (part of vehicle parameters p.sub.v), yaw rate r 58, steering angle δ.sub.sw (18 and 22)and mapped longitudinal and lateral velocities from the vehicles' center of gravity (CG) into the tire (wheel 106) coordinates” The Examiner notes that yaw rate refers to rotational velocity).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the slip system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently gather data (See at least [0004] “Accordingly, an improved system and method for validating vehicle lateral velocity estimation is desirable. The improved system and method employ an efficient real-time validation algorithm that is robust to road uncertainties and does not require redundant estimations or measurements.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kasaiezadeh, in further view of Dodson (US 20180209524 A1), hereinafter Dodson.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Hamilton and Kasaiezadeh, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 17. The combination of Hamilton and Kasaiezadeh does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Dodson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least [0177] “The difference is speed of each axle 400 is carefully controlled by the system to control the amount of wheel slip”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the slip system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh with the axle system disclosed by Dodson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously optimize movement efficiency (See at least [0176] “The control strategy within the controller optimises acceleration and braking, and may be programmed with routes and the timetable. This information is used to select an optimum level of acceleration and of braking, so as to avoid accelerating at a higher level than required (and same for braking).”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, in view of Kasaiezadeh, in further view of Schiffmann (US 20220126834 A1), hereinafter Schiffmann.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Hamilton and Kasaiezadeh, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 17. The combination of Hamilton and Kasaiezadeh does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Schiffmann, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 3, Items 40, 78, [0033] “The acceleration sensor 42 is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that senses acceleration of the vehicle 22 and provides an output indicating the acceleration to the processor 36”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the slip system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh with the acceleration system disclosed by Schiffmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve vehicle control (See at least [0052] “The determined friction characteristic information facilitates improved vehicle control”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 (publication US20250231290A1) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application 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: a radar transceiver arranged to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array, wherein the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a first azimuth direction and in a second azimuth direction different from the first azimuth direction, 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 azimuth direction and the second radar signal component has an AoA corresponding to the second azimuth direction, 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 of the second detected radar signal component (See at least Claim 1 “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: a radar transceiver arranged to transmit and to receive a radar signal, via an antenna array, 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, 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, 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”, Claim 2 “The radar module according to claim 1, wherein the first direction is a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the second direction is a lateral direction of the vehicle”)
Regarding claim 21, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Claims 7, 10-15, 20, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Hamilton (US 20220171069 A1), hereinafter Hamilton. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously or sequentially covering a range of elevation directions. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously or sequentially covering a range of elevation directions (See at least [0038] “A transceiver of a vehicular radar sensor may be configured to transmit a wide beam (also called a “fan beam”) at an elevation angle that may be varied over time. FIG. 3A shows examples of different elevation angles ranging from about −45 degrees to about +45 degrees relative to horizontal. Such a beam may have a width in a range of, for example, from 60, 90, or 120 to 120, 150, or 180 degrees and a height in a range of, for example, from five, 10, 20, or 25 to 25, 30, 35, or 45 degrees, and either or both of the width and height may be varied over time. Steering of the beam from one elevation angle to another”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 10, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the first azimuth direction is a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the second azimuth direction is a lateral direction of the vehicle. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first azimuth direction is a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the second azimuth direction is a lateral direction of the vehicle (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “transceiver XC10 to receive information from multiple receive beam spots (e.g., from a plurality of different patches of the road surface) for ego-velocity estimation. For example, it may be desired to estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction. FIG. 5B shows an example in which measurements of the reflected beam are obtained for three different azimuth angles: 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), one for a beam spot at a positive azimuth angle (e.g., a reflection from a patch of the road surface that is below and to the right),”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 11, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the first azimuth direction and the second azimuth 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, 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. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first azimuth direction and the second azimuth 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, 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 (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”, [0031] “the radar may be configured to maximize the use of the Doppler measurements for ego localization (e.g., to have a high PRF). The system switches between the environment-sensing mode and the ego-velocity mode several times per second”, [0044] “In other examples, transceiver XC10 may be implemented as part of a pulse-Doppler sensor”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 12, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a line. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a line (See at least [0045] “The transmit antenna elements TA1, TA2, . . . , TAn may be arranged as a linear (one-dimensional) array”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 13, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a two- dimensional grid. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array comprises a plurality of antenna elements arranged on a two- dimensional grid (See at least [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”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 14, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose 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 along a bore sight direction of the antenna array. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 along a bore sight direction of the antenna array (See at least Fig. 9, [0055] “FIG. 9 shows an example in which transceiver XC10 is located fifty centimeters above the road surface, the angle of incidence of the beam is forty-five degrees, and the receive beam has a width of twenty degrees.” Hamilton discloses a variety of elevation angles, and as an example the transceiver having a height of fifty centimeters with a bore sight direction of 70 centimeters)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 15, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 1A, [0030] “Based on information from at least one reflection of the first beam, task T20 calculates a distance between the transceiver and a moving object. Task T30 transmits, via a transceiver, a second beam having a second frequency characteristic that is different than the first frequency characteristic, wherein 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). The first frequency characteristic and the second frequency characteristic may be, for example, a pulse bandwidth, a pulse duration, a pulse repetition rate, or a pulse shape.” See also [0043]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 20, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose A heavy-duty vehicle comprising a radar system. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
A heavy-duty vehicle comprising a radar system (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0029] “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Regarding claim 22, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 21. The reference application does not explicitly disclose A computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 21 when the program is run on a computer. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
A computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 21 when the program is run on a computer (See at least [0062] “FIG. 11 illustrates an example computer system 1100 that may be utilized with and/or incorporate one or more electronic components of apparatus A100”, [0069] “The memory 1135 may comprise a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors of computer system 1100 (e.g., processing units 1110). Such instructions may be stored as program code”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Claims 2-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Hamilton, in further view of Kishigami. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal over a range of azimuth directions. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal over a range of azimuth directions (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] measurements of the reflected beam are obtained for three different azimuth angles”, [0045] “Transceiver XC20 also includes a transmit array having n transmit antenna elements”), and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
The combination of the reference application and Hamilton does not explicitly disclose where the processing device is arranged to evaluate received radar signal power over the range of azimuth directions, and to detect the first and the second radar signal components as radar signal components associated with radar signal power that satisfies an acceptance criterion. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
where the processing device is arranged to evaluate received radar signal power over the range of azimuth directions, and to detect the first and the second radar signal components as radar signal components associated with radar signal power that satisfies an acceptance criterion (See at least [0149] “object detection unit 26 performs comparison of the power profile F.sub.out(k, f.sub.s, .theta..sub.u, w) obtained from the moving object azimuth estimation unit 24 in the w-th Np.times.Nc transmit periods Tr with a predetermined threshold value, or adaptive threshold decision (for example, CFAR) on the power profile F.sub.out(k, f.sub.s, .theta..sub.u, w) obtained from the moving object azimuth estimation unit 24” See also [0148]-[0150]. Kishigami discloses comparing power profiles of multiple objects against a threshold (acceptance criterion) for azimuth based data)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton with the power system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0010] “One non-limiting and exemplary embodiment provides a radar apparatus that reduces incorrect estimations caused by side lobes and grating lobes occurring in the azimuth direction to improve the accuracy of object detection in estimation of the azimuth angle of an object using a receive array antenna.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the reference application, Hamilton, and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. The reference application does not explicitly disclose a set of discrete azimuth directions constitutes the range of azimuth directions or where the range of azimuth directions is a continuous range of azimuth directions. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a set of discrete azimuth directions constitutes the range of azimuth directions or where the range of azimuth directions is a continuous range of azimuth directions (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0042] “A vehicular radar sensor is typically configured to receive a reflected beam over a wide azimuth angle and may be configured to process the received signal to create multiple receive beams having different respective widths and/or directions. FIG. 5A shows examples of different azimuth angles ranging from about −45 degrees to about plus 45 degrees relative to the forward axis.” See also [0055]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton with the power system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Kurono. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously covering the range of azimuth directions. However, Kurono, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe simultaneously covering the range of azimuth directions (See at least Fig. 2, [0035] “The transmitting antennas Tx1, Tx2, and Tx3 simultaneously and repeatedly transmit transmitted waves to predetermined transmitting azimuths based on the transmission signals supplied by the processor 30”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the transmission system disclosed by Kurono. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0043] “the transmission azimuth of the transmitted wave coincides with the receiving azimuth of the reflected wave (i.e., the azimuth in which the reflected wave arrives), the radar system 100 can estimate the azimuth with high resolution and accuracy”).
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Slobodyanyuk. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe which is more narrow than the range of azimuth directions, and to sweep the transmission lobe over the range of azimuth directions. However, Slobodyanyuk, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array is configured to emit the radar signal in a transmission lobe which is more narrow than the range of azimuth directions, and to sweep the transmission lobe over the range of azimuth directions (See at least [0019] “two-dimensional antenna arrays to sweep FoVs associated with the vehicles. For example, the antenna array for a vehicle may beamform (e.g., in analog or digital) and sweep a beam back-and-forth across the FoV to detect objects”, [0042] “antenna(s) 295 to sweep a radio beam along an axis of an associated plane”, [0063] “scans from the azimuthal radar 403” Slobodyanyuk discloses an improvement on two-dimensional radar arrays as a one-dimensional radar array (azimuthal) radar based on scans/sweeps).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by Hamilton with the transmission system disclosed by Slobodyanyuk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy, reduce power consumption, and lower processing overhead (See at least [0021] “The one-dimensional radar arrays can achieve higher accuracy with less power consumption and lower processing overhead as compared with two-dimensional radar arrays, as well as being less expensive to manufacture.”).
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Slobodyanyuk in further view of Hamilton. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of the reference application and Slobodyanyuk, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5. the combination of the reference application and Slobodyanyuk does not explicitly disclose the antenna array comprises a transmit portion and a receive portion arranged spatially separated from the transmit portion. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the antenna array comprises a transmit portion and a receive portion arranged spatially separated from the transmit portion (See at least Figs. 6A-6B [0044] “The transmitter portion XC20A and receive portion XC20B may be implemented on the same substrate or on different substrates”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the transmission system disclosed by Slobodyanyuk with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Kulesh. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 8, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application further discloses
(See at least claim 1).
The reference application does not explicitly disclose the processing device is arranged to determine respective accuracy metrics for the first and second
the processing device is arranged to determine respective accuracy metrics for the first and second (See at least [0033] “the processing circuitry refines the at least one accuracy metric as a function of at least one of an indication of power or distance sensed in optically received signals by changing one or more of the bin widths of the plurality of different sub-histograms” The Examiner notes that optical signals of Kulesh are analogous to radar signals).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the accuracy metric system disclosed by Kulesh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability (See at least [0033] “to optimize or improve detection reliability of one or more distal ones of the physical objects”).
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Kulesh in further view of Chen. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of the reference application and Kulesh, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 (The Examiner notes that claim 9 is objected to incorrect dependence on claim 7). The reference application and Kulesh does not explicitly disclose the processing device is arranged to control transmission of the radar signal in dependence of the determined accuracy metrics. However, Chen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the processing device is arranged to control transmission of the radar signal in dependence of the determined accuracy metrics (See at least [0112] “the system 301 may include a feedback controller 316, which may be configured to determine a plurality of reconfigurable radio parameters 317, for example, based on output 318 of the radar processor 309. The reconfigurable radio parameters 317 may include a waveform, a modulation, a center frequency, a bandwidth, a polarization, a beamforming directivity, phase and/or amplitude values, e.g., control signals to the radar frontend, for example a radiofrequency lens, antennas, transmitters”, [0075] “Reinforcement learning models may include positive or negative feedback to improve accuracy.” See also [0219] Chen discloses a feedback model based on accuracy where transmission is controlled based on a looping feedback/accuracy).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the accuracy metric system disclosed by Kulesh with the transmission system disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0075] “Reinforcement learning models may include positive or negative feedback to improve accuracy.”).
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Kasaiezadeh. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Kasaiezadeh, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 3, [0060] “steering angle δ.sub.sw (18 and 22)and mapped longitudinal and lateral velocities from the vehicles' center of gravity (CG) into the tire (wheel 106) coordinates”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the coordinate system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently gather data (See at least [0004] “Accordingly, an improved system and method for validating vehicle lateral velocity estimation is desirable. The improved system and method employ an efficient real-time validation algorithm that is robust to road uncertainties and does not require redundant estimations or measurements.”).
Claim 17 is a provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Hamilton, in futher view of Kasaiezadeh. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 17, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose a wheel end module for a heavy-duty vehicle, the wheel end module comprising a radar system according to claim 1, and a wheel speed sensor arranged to determine a rotational velocity of a wheel on the heavy-duty vehicle. However, Hamilton, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
A wheel end module for a heavy-duty vehicle, the wheel end module comprising a radar system according to claim 1, and a wheel speed sensor arranged to determine a rotational velocity of a wheel on the heavy-duty vehicle (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0029] “the principles, methods, and apparatuses disclosed relate more generally to powered road vehicles, including cargo vehicles (e.g., trucks, tractor-trailers)”, [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself,”, [0043] “from a plurality of different patches of the road surface […] estimate components of the ego-velocity vector in more than one direction”, [0024] “wheel speed sensors”),
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0025] “Measurements by a vehicular radar sensor may also contain information about the velocity of the ego vehicle itself, which might be used to solve the ego localization task with increased accuracy and robustness.”).
The combination of the reference application and Hamilton does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Kasaiezadeh, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 3, [0060] “slip angles α (20, 24, 38, and 40) are determined for each wheel 106, as well as their magnitude average, α.sub.m. […] These values are determined based on the vehicle's geometry (part of vehicle parameters p.sub.v), yaw rate r 58, steering angle δ.sub.sw (18 and 22)and mapped longitudinal and lateral velocities from the vehicles' center of gravity (CG) into the tire (wheel 106) coordinates” The Examiner notes that yaw rate refers to rotational velocity).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton with the slip system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently gather data (See at least [0004] “Accordingly, an improved system and method for validating vehicle lateral velocity estimation is desirable. The improved system and method employ an efficient real-time validation algorithm that is robust to road uncertainties and does not require redundant estimations or measurements.”).
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Hamilton, in further view of Kasaiezadeh, in further view of Dodson. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of the reference application, Hamilton, and Kasaiezadeh as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 17. The combination of the reference application, Hamilton, and Kasaiezadeh does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Dodson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least [0177] “The difference is speed of each axle 400 is carefully controlled by the system to control the amount of wheel slip”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton with the slip system disclosed by Kasaiezadeh with the axle system disclosed by Dodson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously optimize movement efficiency (See at least [0176] “The control strategy within the controller optimises acceleration and braking, and may be programmed with routes and the timetable. This information is used to select an optimum level of acceleration and of braking, so as to avoid accelerating at a higher level than required (and same for braking).”).
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/844,783 in view of Hamilton, in further view of Kasaiezadeh, in further view of Schiffmann. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of the reference application, Hamilton, and Kasaiezadeh as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 17. The combination of the reference application, Hamilton, and Kasaiezadeh does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Schiffmann, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 (See at least Fig. 3, Items 40, 78, [0033] “The acceleration sensor 42 is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that senses acceleration of the vehicle 22 and provides an output indicating the acceleration to the processor 36”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar module system disclosed by the reference application with the radar system disclosed by Hamilton with the acceleration system disclosed by Schiffmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve vehicle control (See at least [0052] “The determined friction characteristic information facilitates improved vehicle control”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bando (US 20180312170 A1) - A device of estimating a slip angle of vehicle wheel has an attitude-toward-road surface estimation section that uses a series of distances to measurement points on a road surface to estimate vehicle-body-road-surface coordinate conversion information (VCCI) for conversion from a vehicle-body coordinate system to a road-surface coordinate system, an on-road-surface inertia quantity calculation section that removes a gravity acceleration component from the vehicle-body inertia quantity to obtain inertia quantity caused by motion of a vehicle body and uses the VCCI to convert from the inertia quantity caused by the motion of the vehicle body to the road-surface coordinate system, and a wheel slip angle estimation section that estimates a sideslip angle of the vehicle wheel on the basis of a difference between a wheel acceleration vector and the acceleration vector converted to the road-surface coordinate system.
Cao (US 20160291143 A1) - A vehicle movement estimation device has a radar that is provided in a vehicle and that performs transmission of a radar wave and reception of a reflected wave that is the radar wave reflected by an object, a radar movement estimator that estimates a radar movement velocity and a radar movement direction of the radar based on the received reflected wave, an angular velocity estimator that estimates a rotational angular velocity of the vehicle, and a vehicle movement estimator that estimates a movement velocity and a movement direction of a prescribed position of the vehicle based on the estimated radar movement velocity and radar movement direction, the estimated rotational angular velocity, and a spatial relationship between the radar and the prescribed position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights