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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 11,13-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 20230305141 A1), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses
A radar-based system in a vehicle for driver assistance or automated driving (see Fig. 2b), comprising:
a processor (see paragraph 0028, “The system 200 for radar-based LOCALIZATION AND/OR MAPPING preferably includes one or more radar sensors 201. In examples, each radar sensor 201 can include one or more transmitter arrays 210, receiver arrays 220, and/or signal processors 240 (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 2C-2D).”) configured to:
receive signals from at least one sensor of the vehicle configured to detect an object outside the vehicle (see Fig. 1A, receiving sensor data S100, further see paragraph 0046, “Receiving sensor data S100 preferably functions to receive data indicative of an environment surrounding the sensors. The sensor data received preferably includes radar sensor data (e.g., received from the one or more radar sensors of the system) and can additionally or alternatively include auxiliary sensor data (e.g., received from one or more auxiliary sensors of the system.”), wherein the signals include position information and a radial velocity of each of at least three objects relative to the at least one sensor (see paragraph 0071, “The sensor data can additionally or alternatively include point tracking in position space (relative to the sensor), such as represented by position in spherical coordinates (e.g., radial distance R, polar angle θ, and azimuthal angle ϕ) and/or any other suitable coordinate system, and/or tracked in any other suitable spaces”, further see Fig. 4A, where radar sensors 201 on the vehicle detect three objects corresponding to points 1, 2 and 3, further see paragraph 0087, “In this first embodiment, for each point, a value indicative of the change in orientation about the rotation axis can be determined based on the change in radial velocity and on the angle β between the center plane and the point (e.g., the angle between the center plane and a vector directed from the radar sensor to the point, wherein angles to points on one side of the plane are denoted as negative and angles to points on the other side of the plane are denoted as positive, as shown by way of example in FIG. 4A)”), and
determine a velocity of the vehicle based on the received signals (see Figs. 1A and 1B, determining egospeed S200, further see paragraph 0075, “Determining presumptive speeds preferably includes determining a respective presumptive speed s* for each point represented in the radar sensor data. For each point, the presumptive speed can be determined based on the radial velocity VD of the point and the composite angle a (defined between the point, the radar sensor, and the egovelocity, such as shown in FIGS. 3C and/or 4B)”, where the egospeed is performed based on the presumptive speeds corresponding to each point).
Regarding claim 13, Hong further discloses
The radar-based system according to claim 11, wherein the position information includes an azimuth, an elevation and a distance of the object relative to the at least one sensor (see paragraph 0094, “For example, the position changes can be determined based on spatial tracking, such as azimuth-elevation tracking or 3-D point tracking, or based on tracking that includes both angle and velocity (e.g., radial velocity), such as azimuth-elevation-velocity tracking or 4-D point tracking (e.g., including azimuth, elevation, range, and velocity), rather than on R-V tracking. Based on these position changes, S300 can include determining the egorotation that is consistent with (e.g., that would lead to) these position changes.”).
Regarding claim 14, Hong further discloses
The radar-based system according to claim 12, wherein the angular velocity of the vehicle includes a yaw angle and/or a pitch angle (see paragraph 0083, “In one example in which the egovelocity is forward (e.g., with respect to the vehicle to which the radar sensors are mounted) or substantially forward, a vehicle yaw corresponding to a vertical rotation axis (e.g., axis parallel to the force of gravity acting on the vehicle, axis normal to a vehicle support surface such as a road, axis normal to a vehicle reference plane such as a horizontal plane, etc.) and/or a vehicle pitch corresponding to a pitch rotation axis (e.g., axis perpendicular to both the vertical rotation axis and the forward egovelocity direction) can be calculated as described herein.”, further see paragraph 0094, “In a second embodiment, some or all egorotation components (e.g., pitch, roll, and yaw, a subset thereof, and/or any other suitable rotation components) can be determined based on changes in the positions of the objects in the environment. For example, the position changes can be determined based on spatial tracking, such as azimuth-elevation tracking or 3-D point tracking, or based on tracking that includes both angle and velocity (e.g., radial velocity), such as azimuth-elevation-velocity tracking or 4-D point tracking (e.g., including azimuth, elevation, range, and velocity), rather than on R-V tracking. Based on these position changes, S300 can include determining the egorotation that is consistent with (e.g., that would lead to) these position changes.”).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 11 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 11 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 13 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 11 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claims 12 and 17, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 12 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (US 20220089166 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses receiving radar sensor data from at least one radar sensor and determining a motion state of a vehicle based on data collected from the radar sensor where the data includes at least three objects (see Figs. 3 and 4).
BIALER et al. (US 20210011150 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses receiving radar sensor data from at least one radar sensor on a vehicle and determining vehicle velocity based on the received sensor data (see flow chart of Fig. 4).
Klotzbuecher et al. (US 20080266170 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses receiving radar sensor data from at least one radar sensor on a vehicle and determining vehicle velocity based on the received sensor data which includes detection points corresponding to a plurality of objects on another vehicle (see Fig. 2).
STEINER et al. (US 20210026006 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses receiving radar sensor data from three sensors relative to at least three objects where relative radial velocities are determined for each sensor (see paragraph 0076, “An exemplary scenario with three stationary sensors and three moving targets is depicted in FIG. 9. The plot shows the ideal multilateration utilizing three sensors S1-S3 for the localization of three moving targets T1-T3. At every target position the actual velocity indicated by the arrows V1, V2, V3 as well as the resulting radial velocities (indicated by the other arrows) are drawn regarding the respective sensor.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights