DETAILED NONFINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of September 23, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
The drawings of September 23, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of October 24, 2024 has been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo et al (US 2023/0008853 A1), hereinafter Kondo et al (‘853).
Looking, first, to independent claim 1 as newly-amended, the preamble, “A computer implemented method for determining a pitch angle … of the vehicle” (lines 1-5) is met by Kondo et al (‘853) by the computer system of Figure 1 on the disclosed “vehicle VH.”
The first claim 1 method step of “detecting road perception information from the road surface via the perception system” (lines 6-7) is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by step S130 in Figure 12 and the related disclosure.
The second claim 1 method step of “detecting, via the perception system, object perception information from objects different from the road surface” (lines 8-9) is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by step S110 in Figure 12 and the related disclosure.
The claim 1 limitation, “via a processing unit of the vehicle performing the steps of” (line 10) is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by any one or more of items 5, 29, or 19, as illustrated by Figure 1 of the reference.
The claim 1 method step of “determining a primary pitch angle by using the road perception information” (lines 11-12) is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by step S140 in Figure 12 and the related disclosure.
The claim 1 method step of “determining a relative pitch angle by using the object perception information” (lines 13-14) is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by step S120 in Figure 12 and the related disclosure.
The final claim 1 method step of “combining the primary pitch angle and the relative pitch angle in order to determine a final pitch angle of the perception system” (lines 15-16) is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by step S150 and the related disclosure.
In that each and every claim limitation recited in independent claim 1 as newly-amended is disclosed in Kondo et al (‘853), independent claim 1 as newly-amended is anticipated by Kondo et al (‘853).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 7, the limitation on line 3 that “the perception system includes a radar system” is met in Kondo et al (‘853) by the disclosed radar system, noting, for example, item 3 in Figure 1. The claim 7 limitation on lines 4-5 that “the road perception information includes road radar detections …” is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by method step S130 in Figure 12. The claim 7 limitation on lines 6-8 that “the object perception information includes object radar detections received from stationary objects being different from the road surface in the external environment of the vehicle” is met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by method step S110 in Figure 12 where stationary objects are detected using the disclosed radar system 3 as the “vehicle VH” travels along a road.
The further limitations of dependent claim 11 are met, at least, by Figure 1 of Kondo et al (‘853).
The further limitations of dependent claim 12 are met, at least, by Figure 1 and “vehicle VH” of Kondo et al (‘853), noting, in addition, for example, paragraph [0050] at lines 1-3.
The further limitations of dependent claim 13 are met, at least, by Figure 1 in Kondo et al (‘853) including “radar system” 3, 3a, and 3b, which includes the “front radar sensor” 3 as illustrated in Figures 2, 3, and 6.
The further limitations of dependent claim 14 are met in Kondo et al (‘853), at least, by the disclosed unit in Kondo et al (‘853) that implements step S190 in Figure 12, or by “control device 5” in Figure 1. That is to say, the further limitations of dependent claim 14 are met in Kondo et al (‘853) by the unit in Kondo et al (‘853) implementing the “AXIS DEVIATION ADJUSTMENT PROCESS.” Please note the final sentence in paragraph [0064] that “a plurality of microcomputers” may be used to implement the method in Kondo et al (‘853).
The further limitations in dependent claim 15 are met in Kondo et al (‘853) by the “non-transitory tangible storage medium” mentioned in paragraph [0064] at lines 4-12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al (‘853).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of vehicle sensor systems.
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are not disclosed in Kondo et al (‘853), but Kondo et al (‘853) teaches the use of a “weighted average” in paragraph [0251] in combining pitch angles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention from the teaching of Kondo et al (‘853) to combine the “primary pitch angle” and the “relative pitch angle” using a weighted average as an efficient manner of combing the data of these pitch angles in the context of a vehicle where large amounts of sensor data are processed with a reasonable likelihood of success. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a “recursive filter” in this combining from among the wide variety of ways in which this combining could be done, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 5, these are not in Kondo et al (‘853) as applied above to claims 2 and 1. However, in that a Kalman filter is a recursive algorithm used in a dynamic system to process noisy measurements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a Kalman filter in the “recursive filter” in Kondo et al (‘853) as applied above to dependent claim 2 from among the large number of ways in which the “recursive filter” could be implemented in an effort to optimize the operation of the “recursive filter,” with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 6, in that neither the radar system in Kondo et al (‘853) nor the system illustrated in Figure 1 of Kondo et al (‘853) has unlimited capacity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the area in which the radar system is directed ahead of the “vehicle VH” to an area that is optimal for the functioning of the overall system without overwhelming the signal processing in Kondo et al (‘853), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims, 3, 4, and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okuchi et al (‘680) is of general interest for the disclosure of automatic pitch adjustment.
Bang (‘062) is of general interest for the disclosure related to sensor pitch adjustment.
Amano (‘912) is of general interest for the disclosure related to pitch angle calculation for a vehicle.
Okuchi et al (‘398) is of general interest for the disclosure related to automatic pitch angle adjustment.
Toda et al (‘118) is of general interest for the disclosure related to automatic pitch adjustment for vehicle headlights.
Winner (‘353) is of general interest for the disclosure related to adjustment of pitch misalignment.
Sahara et al (‘364) is of general interest for the disclosure related to use of reflections from a road surface.
Nakagawa (‘214) is of general interest for the disclosure related to axis adjusting.
Treptow et al (‘410) is of general interest for the disclosure related to determination of elevation misalignment.
Kwon (‘509) is of general interest for the disclosure related to radar vertical angle abnormality.
Jeong (‘940) is of general interest for the disclosure related to adjusting sensor vertical alignment, especially noting items 610 and 620 in the drawing figures.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights