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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed June 11, 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaes et al. (Blaes; US Pub No. 2023/0384419 A1) in view of Rezvani et al. (Rezvani; US Pub No. 2023/0168359 A1) and Peterson et al. (Peterson; US Patent No. 9,863,928 B1).
As per claim 1, Blaes teaches a computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via a radar system of a vehicle, radar data (paragraph [0028], lines 3-4);
identifying, via a hazard alert algorithm, multipath clusters based on the radar data (paragraph [0030], lines 13-18)…
identifying… an abnormality (paragraph [0084], lines 10-14);
… a hazard list of the hazard alert algorithm with the identified abnormality (paragraphs [0084] and [0085]).
Blaes does not expressly teach estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm, a local reflection coefficient for one or more of the multipath clusters;
comparing, via the hazard alert algorithm, the local reflection coefficient to a global reflection coefficient stored by a hazard alert system;
identifying, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, an abnormality;
updating, via a hazard tracker, a hazard list of the hazard alert algorithm with the identified abnormality, the hazard tracker including a kinematic tracker and a semantic tracker, the kinematic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a location of a previously tracked hazard and the semantic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a reflection coefficient of the previously tracked hazard;
estimating, based on the updated hazard list, a hazard type; and
issuing, via the hazard alert algorithm, an alert including the estimated hazard type.
Rezvani teaches estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm (paragraph [0148]), a local reflection coefficient for one or more of the multipath clusters (paragraph [0102], lines 6-8; paragraph [0129]);
comparing, via the hazard alert algorithm, the local reflection coefficient to a global reflection coefficient stored by a hazard alert system (paragraph [0148], lines 14-19);
identifying, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, an abnormality (paragraph [0148]; paragraph [0173]: obstacle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the reflection coefficient as taught by Rezvani, since Rezvani states in paragraph [0102] that such a modification would result in determining a type of obstacle.
Peterson teaches updating, via a hazard tracker, a hazard list of the hazard alert algorithm with the identified abnormality (col. 3, lines 40-44, 48-50 & 55-56), the hazard tracker including a kinematic tracker and a semantic tracker, the kinematic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a location of a previously tracked hazard (col. 3, lines 40-44 & 48-56) and the semantic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a reflection coefficient of the previously tracked hazard (col. 14, lines 5-14);
estimating, based on the updated hazard list, a hazard type (col. 3, lines 42-44 & 48-50; col. 14, lines 43-46); and
issuing, via the hazard alert algorithm, an alert including the estimated hazard type (col. 11, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the central server for tracking road conditions as taught by Peterson, since Peterson states that such a modification would result in sharing and communication road condition data amongst a plurality of vehicles travelling along a roadway.
As per claim 2, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 1, further including estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm, a reflecting point location of the radar data on a road surface (Blaes, paragraph [0056], lines 17-24).
As per claim 3, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 2, further including identifying, based on the reflecting point location, an in-road boundary (Peterson, col. 14, lines 27-29).
As per claim 4, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein identifying the in-road boundary includes identifying a road type (Blaes, paragraph [0057], line 16).
As per claim 5, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein identifying the multipath clusters includes generating geometrical layout criteria and identifying the multipath clusters that meet the geometrical layout criteria (Blaes, paragraph [0013]).
As per claim 7, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein identifying the multipath clusters includes sampling, via a static infrastructure, a plurality of road points (Blaes, paragraph [0031]; Rezvani, paragraph [0086]).
As per claim 8, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 1, further including generating, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, weights for an estimated global reflection coefficient (Rezvani, paragraph [0149], lines 15-23).
As per claim 9, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson further teaches the method of Claim 8, further including updating the global reflection coefficient based on the generated weights and updating the road surface type of the global reflection coefficient (Rezvani, paragraph [0149], lines 15-23).
As per claim 10, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a hazard alert system comprising:
data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via a radar system of a vehicle, radar data;
identifying, via a hazard alert algorithm, multipath clusters based on the radar data;
estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm, a local reflection coefficient for one or more of the multipath clusters;
comparing, via the hazard alert algorithm, the local reflection coefficient to a global reflection coefficient stored by the
identifying, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, an abnormality;
updating, via a hazard tracker, a hazard list of the hazard alert algorithm with the identified abnormality, the hazard tracker including a kinematic tracker and a semantic tracker, the kinematic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a location of a previously tracked hazard and the semantic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a reflection coefficient of the previously tracked hazard;
estimating, based on the updated hazard list, a hazard type; and
issuing, via the hazard alert algorithm, an alert including the estimated hazard type.
As per claim 11, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 10, further including estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm, a reflecting point location of the radar data on a road surface.
As per claim 12, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 11, further including identifying, based on the reflecting point location, an in-road boundary.
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 12, wherein identifying the in-road boundary includes identifying a road type.
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 5 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 10, wherein identifying the multipath clusters includes generating geometrical layout criteria and identifying the multipath clusters that meet the geometrical layout criteria.
As per claim 15, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Zhu further teaches the hazard alert system of Claim 10, wherein the multipath clusters include a target and one or more ghost targets (Blaes, paragraph [0030]).
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 7 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 10, wherein identifying the multipath clusters includes sampling, via a static infrastructure, a plurality of road points.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 8 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 10, further including generating, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, weights for an estimated global reflection coefficient.
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 9 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 17, further including updating the global reflection coefficient based on the generated weights.
As per claim 19, (see rejection of claim 1-3 above) a hazard alert system for a vehicle, the hazard alert system comprising:
data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the
data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via a radar system of the vehicle, one or more inputs;
identifying, via a hazard alert algorithm, multipath clusters based on the one or more inputs;
estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm, a reflecting point location on a road surface;
identifying, based on the reflecting point location, an in-road boundary;
estimating, via the hazard alert algorithm, a local reflection coefficient for one or more of the multipath clusters;
comparing, via the hazard alert algorithm, the local reflection coefficient to a global reflection coefficient stored by the hazard alert system;
identifying, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, an abnormality;
updating, via a hazard tracker, a hazard list of the hazard alert algorithm with the identified abnormality, the hazard tracker including a kinematic tracker and a semantic tracker, the kinematic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a location of a previously tracked hazard and the semantic tracker configured to associate the identified abnormality with a reflection coefficient of the previously tracked hazard;
estimating, based on the updated hazard list, a hazard type; and
issuing, via the hazard alert algorithm, an alert including the estimated hazard type.
As per claim 20, (see rejection of claims 8 and 9 above) the hazard alert system of Claim 19, further including:
generating, based on the comparison of the local reflection coefficient with the global reflection coefficient, weights for an estimated global reflection coefficient; and
updating the global reflection coefficient based on the generated weights.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waltho et al. (Waltho; US Pub No. 2005/0069063 A1).
As per claim 6, Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson teaches the method of Claim 1.
Blaes in view of Rezvani and Peterson does not expressly teach wherein identifying the multipath clusters includes generating an amplitude test and identifying the multipath clusters based on the amplitude test.
Waltho teaches wherein identifying the multipath clusters includes generating an amplitude test and identifying the multipath clusters based on the amplitude test (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the testing as taught by Waltho, since Waltho states in paragraph [0040] that such a modification would result in reducing the effects of interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights