DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application 17/246,951 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is therefore 05/03/2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0094] designates four roof-dome radar units as “radar unit 508A, radar unit 508B, radar unit 508C, and radar unit 508C” - reciting “508C” twice where a fourth, distinct numeral (e.g., 508D) appears to be intended.
[0104] refers to “field of view 514B for radar unit 502A” where the antecedent and FIGS. 5B-5C indicate radar unit 502B.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “integrating the first radar data received from the first radar data and the second radar data received from the second radar over a threshold duration”. The phrase “received from the first radar data” appears to be a typographical error for “received from the first radar.”
The final step of Claim 1 (“based on detecting additional radar data … generating an alert”) and the steps of claims 9 and 10 (“based on detecting … performing a calibration process”) can be interpreted as conditional. For the method claims, under the BRI a step predicated on a condition need not be performed if the condition precedent need not occur (cf. Ex parte Schulhauser); nevertheless, the art applied below is shown to teach the conditional elements. For the system claim 15 and medium claim 20, the conditional functionality is NOT disregarded - the structure/instructions must be capable of performing the conditioned function, and the art is shown to teach that capability. The Examiner suggests the following (or similar) modification to Claim 1:
FROM:
PNG
media_image2.png
74
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
TO:
detecting, during the monitoring, additional radar data from the first radar or the second radar having a power level that differs from the relative power by at least the threshold difference; and
responsive to detecting the additional radar data, generating an alert.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 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.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 each recite determining a relative power between the first radar and the second radar, and thereafter a power level that differs from the relative power by at least a threshold difference. The metes and bounds of “a relative power between the first radar and the second radar” are unclear. It cannot be determined from the claim whether the “relative power” is (a) a single combined or average power value, (b) a ratio of the two radars’ powers, or (c) a difference between the two radars’ powers, nor how a single “power level” of additional radar data from one radar is then compared to a “relative power” defined “between” both radars. The specification does not use the claim phrase in a manner that resolves this ambiguity; it instead describes a per-radar “first power level” and “second power level” representing a target object and a “power difference” between them relative to a “threshold power difference” ([0005-0007], [0102], [0120]), while [0029] refers generally to establishing a “relative power between the overlapping radars.” Because one of ordinary skill could not ascertain with reasonable certainty what quantity “relative power between” the two radars denotes or how the recited comparison is performed, claims 1, 15, and 20 are indefinite. Claims 2-14, 16-19 depend from a rejected base claim and are rejected for the same reason.
The Examiner suggest amending the independent claims to recite the per-radar power levels and a power difference between them relative to a threshold power difference (consistent with [0005-0007] and [0120]) would appear to overcome this rejection.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US12,189,024B1 (application 17/246,951). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
18/955,396 Claim 1
US12,189,024B1 Claim 1
Reasoning
integrating, by a computing device coupled to a vehicle, first radar data from a first radar and second radar data from a second radar, wherein a first field of view … at least partially overlaps a second field of view
receiving, at a computing device coupled to a vehicle, first radar data from a first radar unit and second radar data from a second radar unit, wherein the first radar data is generated based on first radar signals transmitted at a first center frequency … second radar signals transmitted at a second center frequency … wherein the first field of view partially overlaps with the second field of view
Same concept. 17/246,951’s ‘receiving’ and subsequently using both data sets together constitutes ‘integrating’ under BRI. Both require overlapping FOVs. 17/246,951 is narrower: it additionally requires specific first and second center frequencies.
based on integrating …, determining a relative power between the first radar and the second radar
detecting a target object in both …
determining a first power level … and a second power level …
adjusting, using a sensitivity model, … based on an azimuth offset … and a frequency offset …
determining a power difference between the first power level and the second power level
Same concept. 17/246,951’s process of determining individual power levels and computing a power difference is a specific implementation of 18/955,396’s broader ‘determining a relative power.’ 17/246,951 is narrower: it additionally requires (a) detecting a target object, (b) a sensitivity model, (c) azimuth offset, and (d) frequency offset.
monitoring, by the computing device using the relative power, operation of the first radar and the second radar during navigation by the vehicle
(Implicit in 17/246,951’s method: the receiving, detecting, determining, adjusting, and comparing steps are performed on radar data acquired during vehicle operation by a computing device coupled to the vehicle.)
Same concept. 17/246,951’s overall method of receiving, processing, and acting on power differences constitutes monitoring radar operation during navigation. 18/955,396 recites this step explicitly; 17/246,951 describes it through the aggregate of its processing steps. 18/955,396’s explicit recitation does not add a limitation that 17/246,951’s method would not inherently satisfy.
based on detecting additional radar data … having a power level that differs from the relative power by at least a threshold difference, generating an alert
based on the power difference exceeding a threshold power difference, performing a calibration process to decrease the power difference
18/955,396 is broader. ‘Generating an alert’ is a broader concept that encompasses ‘performing a calibration process.’ A calibration process is a specific type of responsive action; an alert is any notification or responsive indication. 17/246,951 is narrower: it specifies the particular responsive action (calibration to decrease the power difference).
CONCLUSION:
18/955,396 claim 1 is broader than 17/246,951 claim 1.
CONCLUSION:
17/246,951 claim 1 is narrower. Every conceptual limitation of 18/955,396 claim 1 maps to a counterpart in 17/246,951 claim 1. 17/246,951 adds: center frequencies, target object detection, sensitivity model (azimuth + frequency offsets), and a specific calibration process.
NOT patentably distinct. 18/955,396 claim 1 encompasses 17/246,951 claim 1. Infringement of 17/246,951 claim 1 would necessarily infringe 18/955,396 claim 1.
Independent CRM Claims, 18/955,396 Claim 20 vs. 17/246,951 Claim 19
18/955,396 Claim 20
US12,189,024B1 Claim 19
Reasoning
Non-transitory CRM:
• integrating radar data (overlapping FOVs)
• determining a relative power
• monitoring during navigation
• generating alert based on threshold
Mirrors 18/955,396 method claim 1.
Non-transitory CRM:
• receiving radar data (center frequencies)
• detecting target object
• determining power levels
• adjusting using sensitivity model
• determining power difference
• performing calibration
Mirrors 17/246,951 method claim 1.
Same conceptual mapping as the method claims.
18/955,396 claim 20 is broader than 17/246,951 claim 19.
NOT patentably distinct. 18/955,396 claim 20 encompasses 17/246,951 claim 19.
The following table maps each dependent claim of 18/955,396 to its closest counterpart in 17/246,951.
18/955,396 claim #
US12,189,024B1 claim #
Subject Matter
Conceptual Comparison
2
1 (base)
Integrating over a threshold duration.
17/246,951 claim 1 recites receiving without a duration requirement. 18/955,396 claim 2 narrows the integration to a threshold duration.
Narrower
3
1 (base)
Threshold duration = plurality of CPIs.
Further specifies 18/955,396 claim 2. No explicit counterpart in 17/246,951.
Narrower
4
16 (sys)
Radars forward facing, proximate front of vehicle.
17/246,951 system claim 16 recites mount parameters indicating angles relative to front. Same concept.
5
—
Threshold difference based on speed of vehicle.
No counterpart in 17/246,951. Distinct narrowing limitation.
6
6
Adjusting power using sensitivity model.
17/246,951 claim 6: azimuth offset from mount params, generating sensitivity model. Same concept.
7
6
Sensitivity model adjusts based on azimuth offset.
Substantially same as 17/246,951 claim 6.
Same concept
8
7
Sensitivity model adjusts based on frequency offset.
Substantially same as 17/246,951 claim 7.
Same concept
9
10
Calibration when first radar below threshold.
17/246,951 claim 10 provides alert with power level info. Both address remedial action for degraded radar; different specifics.
Overlapping
10
10
Calibration when second radar above threshold.
Same as above, opposite direction.
11
6
Azimuth offset from mount parameters; generating sensitivity model.
Substantially same as 17/246,951 claim 6.
Same concept
12
7
Frequency offset; generating sensitivity model.
Substantially same as 17/246,951 claim 7.
Same concept
13
9
2D images with bins; relative power from bin comparison.
17/246,951 claim 9 recites 2D images with bins.
Same concept.
14
11
Alert triggers cleaning process.
17/246,951 claim 11: detecting precipitation, applying heat. Same concept; 18/955,396 is broader (‘cleaning process’).
Same but broader
16
15
Vehicle frame transformation via mount parameters.
Substantially same.
Same concept
17
17
Alert vehicle systems to reduced performance.
Substantially same.
Same concept
18
18
Adjust detection threshold.
Substantially same.
Same concept
19
—
Integrate across plurality of CPIs.
No counterpart in 17/246,951. Adds specificity.
Narrower but distinct.
The following 17/246,951 claims recite limitations that are narrower than 18/955,396’s claims. These do not create a distinction that would prevent a double patenting finding; they confirm that 17/246,951 is narrower.
US12,189,024B1
Subject Matter
Significance
2
Causing radars to transmit per particular waveform parameters.
Narrowing limitation in 17/246,951 only.
3
Receiving radar data cubes with voxels.
Narrowing: specific data structure.
4
Identifying voxels for target object from data cubes.
Narrowing, dependent on 17/246,951 claim 3.
5
Determining power levels based on voxels.
Narrowing, dependent on 17/246,951 claim 4.
8
Detection exceeds threshold SNR.
Additional quality gate. Narrowing.
12
Third radar with overlapping FOV; three-way comparison.
Extension to additional radar. No counterpart in 18/955,396.
13
Training sensitivity model based on detected objects and mount parameters.
Specific implementation detail. Narrowing.
16
Mount parameters = angles relative to front of vehicle.
Narrowing specification of mount parameters.
20
Vehicle frame transformation and detecting based on transformation.
Narrowing limitation in CRM form.
Under BRI, every conceptual limitation in 18/955,396’s independent claims maps to a corresponding limitation in US12,189,024B1 (17/246,951’s) independent claims:
18/955,396’s “integrating” radar data - US12,189,024B1’s “receiving” and processing radar data from two radars
18/955,396’s “determining a relative power” - US12,189,024B1’s determining individual power levels and computing a power difference
18/955,396’s “monitoring … during navigation” - US12,189,024B1’s method inherently performed during vehicle operation
18/955,396’s “generating an alert” - US12,189,024B1’s “performing a calibration process” (a specific type of responsive action)
US12,189,024B1 (17/246,951’s) claims include additional narrowing limitations not recited in 18/955,396’s claims: specific center frequencies, detecting a target object, a sensitivity model with azimuth and frequency offset adjustments, and a specific calibration process to decrease the power difference. These additional limitations make US12,189,024B1 (17/246,951’s) claims narrower than 18/955,396’s claims but do not render the claims patentably distinct - they confirm that 18/955,396’s broader claims encompass 17/246,951’s narrower claims.
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.
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 1, 4, 5-7, 9-11, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeleny et al. (US 2019/0072646 A1) in view of Schiffmann et al. (US 2004/0012516 A1) and further in view of Elwart et al. (US 2015/0309165 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 20, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and further in view of Elwart et al. (‘165) teaches the method/system/computing system.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: A method comprising: ([0010]: “a method for detecting blockages in an automotive radar system having two or more radar sensors with overlapping field-of-views (FOVs)”).
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: integrating, by a computing device coupled to a vehicle, first radar data from a first radar and second radar data from a second radar, wherein a first field of view for the first radar at least partially overlaps a second field of view for the second radar ([0027]: “a subject vehicle 10 … is equipped within one or more radar sensors (generally denoted 12), with a first sensor 12a and a second sensor 12b shown in the example of FIG. 1”; [0031]: “The mounting angles of sensors 12a and 12b may be chosen such that the respective field of FOVs 14a, 14b intersect to form a so-called ‘overlap zone’ 16”; [0045]: “the first sensor 12a may perform blockage detection by comparing sensor 12a’s own overlap zone filtered track object list with the now synchronized filtered raw object lists”; [0059]: “The circuit board 102 has disposed thereon a digital signal processor (DSP) 104 coupled to a control processor 108”). The DSP 104/control processor 108 constitutes the computing device coupled to the vehicle; the first sensor 12a and second sensor 12b constitute the first radar and the second radar; the first sensor’s combining and association of its own object list with the synchronized object list received from the second sensor ([0044-0045]) constitutes integrating the first radar data and the second radar data; and the intersecting FOVs 14a, 14b forming overlap zone 16 constitute the first field of view at least partially overlapping the second field of view.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach determining a relative power between the first and second radar. Zeleny et al. (‘646) compares the two radars’ detections and tracks by computing a detection rate - a count of hits and misses ([0048]) - rather than expressing the comparison in terms of power. Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach, but Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches: based on integrating the first radar data and the second radar data, determining a relative power between the first radar and the second radar ([0015]: “the tracking system has two radar sensors 12A and 12B located on opposite corners of the front of the vehicle 10 … arranged so that the first and second fields of view 14A and 14B partially overlap to provide an overlapping coverage zone 15”; [0017]: “The signal amplitude A is the amplitude of the reflected and returned radar signal received at each sensor”; [0020]: “Amplitude ratio Ar refers to the ratio of the sensed amplitudes of the received signal returns from the two sensors 12A and 12b”; [0041]: “common FOV processing routine 120 computes the amplitude ratio AR, using amplitude measurements A from the current sensor and the most recent amplitude measurement A from the other sensor for the same object of interest”). Schiffmann et al. (‘516) measures the returned radar signal amplitude - i.e., the power level - at each of two vehicle-mounted radars having partially overlapping fields of view and computes the ratio of those two amplitudes for a commonly detected object. That ratio of the two radars’ received powers constitutes a relative power between the first radar and the second radar, and it is computed from the combined data of both sensors for the same object, i.e., based on integrating the first radar data and the second radar data.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overlapping-FOV two-radar blockage-monitoring system of Zeleny et al. (‘646) with the two-radar relative-power determination of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and the power-based degradation metric and alert of Elwart et al. (’165). One would have been motivated to combine Zeleny et al. (‘646) with Schiffmann et al. (‘516) because Schiffmann et al. (‘516) demonstrates, in the same automotive context and for the same physical arrangement of two vehicle-mounted radars with partially overlapping fields of view, that the received return amplitudes of the two radars for a commonly observed object can be meaningfully compared as a ratio, and that a controller can be configured to compute that ratio during vehicle operation (Schiffmann et al. (‘516), [0023]: “The controller 20 receives the range measurement R, range rate measurement Ṙ, and signal amplitude A from each of radar sensors 12A and 12B”). Zeleny et al. (‘646) already establishes the cooperative exchange of detection data between two overlapping radars for the purpose of evaluating one radar against the other; Schiffmann et al. (‘516) supplies an established quantity - the ratio of the two radars’ return amplitudes - for making that evaluation.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches monitoring operation of the two radars during navigation but does so using its detection-rate metric rather than using a relative power [0046]: “blockage detection may be active only when suitable operating conditions exist, for example, if the vehicle 10 is traveling at a speed greater than some predetermined threshold”. Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach the power-based monitoring, but Elwart et al. (’165) teaches: monitoring, by the computing device using the relative power, operation of the first radar and the second radar during navigation by the vehicle ([0024]: “The radar return signal may be monitored to determine if the radar unit 100 is blocked. The radar diagnostics may determine a blockage based on a magnitude of the radar return signals”). Zeleny et al. (‘646) monitors radar operation while the vehicle is being driven, i.e., during navigation, and Elwart et al. (’165) monitors the return-signal magnitude (power) to determine whether a radar is degraded. In the combination, the computing device monitors operation of the first and second radars using the relative power determined per Schiffmann et al. (‘516) during navigation by the vehicle.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach generating an alert based on a power-level difference; Elwart et al. (’165) teaches: based on detecting additional radar data from the first radar or the second radar having a power level that differs from the relative power by at least a threshold difference, generating an alert (Elwart et al. (’165), [0061]: “the controller may compare the return signal magnitude to a threshold”; [0023]: “A diagnostic indicator may be set to alert the driver of the condition”; Zeleny et al. (‘646), [0047]: “a blockage alert may be activated if the detection rate is less than a first threshold”). This limitation recites an alternative (“the first radar or the second radar”); the art need teach only one alternative. Elwart et al. (’165) teaches detecting that a radar’s return-signal magnitude (power level) is below a threshold value and responsively generating a diagnostic alert, while Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches activating a blockage alert upon a threshold-based comparison failing. In the combination, detecting that additional radar data from one of the radars has a power level differing from the relative power of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) by at least the threshold difference, and generating an alert, is taught.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overlapping-FOV two-radar blockage-monitoring system of Zeleny et al. (‘646) with the two-radar relative-power determination of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and the power-based degradation metric and alert of Elwart et al. (’165). One would have been further motivated to apply the power-based degradation determination of Elwart et al. (’165) because Elwart et al. (’165) teaches, in the same automotive radar diagnostic context as Zeleny et al. (‘646), that the magnitude of the radar return signal is a direct indicator of radar degradation - “the return waves may be so degraded that a measured radar return signal is less than a predetermined threshold” ([0023]) - and that a low return magnitude warrants alerting the operator and disabling affected functions. This teaching supplies the express reason a PHOSITA would monitor the two radars’ relative power rather than Zeleny’s detection rate: a power measurement captures the degree of radar degradation directly, whereas a count of detection hits and misses registers degradation only after it has become severe enough to defeat track association. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because all three references operate on the same type of automotive radar return signal in vehicle-mounted installations; Schiffmann et al. (‘516) demonstrates that the two-radar amplitude ratio is operative and computable by a vehicle controller in real time, and Elwart et al. (’165) demonstrates that return-power magnitude is operative for detecting radar degradation.
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, they are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as their bodies are substantively identical to Claim 1, with Zeleny et al. (‘646) further teaching the structural recitations of Claim 15 - a first radar and a second radar coupled to a vehicle and a computing device coupled to the vehicle ([0027], [0059]) - and the stored-instruction recitation of Claim 20 (Zeleny et al. (‘646), [0080]: “Rectangular elements … represent computer software instructions or groups of instructions”; [0060]: the control processor is coupled to an EEPROM 112).
Regarding Claim 4, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach forward-facing, front-mounted radars, mounting its two overlapping radar sensors on opposite sides toward the rear of the vehicle ([0031]), but Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches: wherein the first radar and the second radar are forward facing and coupled proximate a front of the vehicle ([0015]: “The tracking system includes a plurality of overlapping radar sensors 12A and 12B mounted to the vehicle 10 to cover a desired field of view in front of the vehicle. According to the embodiment shown, the tracking system has two radar sensors 12A and 12B located on opposite corners of the front of the vehicle 10”). Schiffmann’s two radar sensors are positioned at the front corners of the vehicle and oriented to cover the field of view in front of the vehicle, and their fields of view partially overlap ([0015]); they therefore constitute the first radar and the second radar, forward facing and coupled proximate a front of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the two overlapping radars of the combined system at the front of the vehicle in the forward-facing arrangement of Schiffmann et al. (‘516), because the amplitude-ratio comparison adopted from Schiffmann et al. (‘516) into the combined system is disclosed by Schiffmann et al. (‘516) in that arrangement, and because Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches that this arrangement provides the overlapping coverage zone in which a common object is observed by both radars ([0015], [0020]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Schiffmann et al. (‘516) demonstrates an operative front-mounted, partially overlapping two-radar arrangement on a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Elwart et al. (’165) teaches: determining the threshold difference based on a speed of the vehicle (Zeleny et al. (‘646), [0046]: “blockage detection may be active only when suitable operating conditions exist, for example, if the vehicle 10 is traveling at a speed greater than some predetermined threshold (sometimes referred to as the ‘activation speed’)”; Zeleny et al. (‘646) expressly makes the blockage-detection evaluation dependent on vehicle speed by conditioning activation on an “activation speed” threshold, establishing that vehicle speed is a parameter governing whether and how the threshold-based degradation determination proceeds.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach, but Elwart et al. (’165) further teaches that the expected return-signal magnitude varies with the vehicle’s speed and traffic density, so that the speed of the vehicle informs what level of return signal should be expected ([0042]: “Traveling at a high constant speed for long periods of time may indicate a sparse environment or low traffic density. A low radar return signal under this condition may be due to no other vehicles being in the area”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the threshold difference based on the vehicle’s speed in the combined system. One would have been motivated to do so because both Zeleny et al. (‘646) and Elwart et al. (’165) teach that the vehicle’s speed informs the radar degradation evaluation - Zeleny et al. (‘646) by gating the entire evaluation on speed, and Elwart et al. (’165) by correlating expected return magnitude with speed and traffic density - such that a threshold difference fixed without regard to speed would produce missed detections at high speed in the sparse environments Elwart et al. (’165) describes, and false alarms at low speed in denser environments. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both references already make the radar degradation evaluation dependent on vehicle speed in the same automotive context, and parameterizing a threshold by a measured vehicle quantity is a routine engineering operation.
Regarding Claim 6, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach adjusting a power level using a sensitivity model, but Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches: wherein determining the relative power between the first radar and the second radar further comprises: adjusting a first power level of the first radar data or a second power level of the second radar data using a sensitivity model; and determining the relative power based on adjusting the first power level of the first radar data or the second power level of the second radar data ([0020]: “Using a point reflector move to varying locations in the overlapping coverage zone 15 of the two sensors 12A and 12B, and construct a lookup table which maps range R and amplitude ratio AR into azimuth angle of the object 16”; [0020]: “A synthetic measurement (estimation) of azimuth angle may thus be constructed from the two amplitude measurements for a given target range”; [0041]: “routine 120 estimates the azimuth angle θ of the object using range R, the amplitude ratio AR, and a lookup table”).
The recited “or” alternative requires that only one of the first or second power level be adjusted. Applying Schiffmann’s calibrated amplitude-to-position model to a measured power level and determining the relative power from the resulting corrected level, is taught by the combination.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a sensitivity model to a measured radar power level when determining the relative power in the combined system. One would have been motivated to do so because, in the combined system, the two radars are mounted at different positions and angles on the vehicle (Zeleny et al. (‘646), [0030], [0049]; Schiffmann et al. (‘516), [0015], [0020]: the sensors are “separated by a distance 2d”), so that the same object will produce different received amplitudes at each radar for reasons of geometry alone. Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches that this geometric dependence is characterized in advance by calibration and applied when the two amplitudes are compared, which is what makes the two radars’ powers meaningfully comparable rather than merely different. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Schiffmann et al. (‘516) demonstrates that the calibrated model is operative for exactly this two-radar automotive arrangement.
Regarding Claim 7, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 6.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach, but Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches: wherein the sensitivity model is configured to adjust the first power level and the second power level based on an azimuth offset between the first radar and the second radar (Schiffmann et al. (‘516), [0020]: “construct a lookup table which maps range R and amplitude ratio AR into azimuth angle of the object 16”; [0020]: “the sensors 12A and 12B are separated by a distance 2d which, in a vehicle application, is typically limited to the width of the vehicle 10. The angle θ may be determined as a function of the range and amplitude of the signals received by sensors 12A and 12B”.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensitivity model to adjust the first and second power levels based on the azimuth offset between the two radars. Schiffmann’s calibrated model expressly relates the two radars’ amplitudes to azimuth angle and does so for a pair of radars separated on the vehicle such that the same object is viewed at a different angle by each. Zeleny et al. (‘646) further establishes that the two radars of the combined system are mounted at different azimuthal mounting angles Zeleny et al. (‘646), [0049]: “nominal mounting angle γ1 is about +37 degrees and nominal mounting angle γ2 is about −37 degrees”) (e.g., +37° and −37°), constituting an azimuth offset between the first radar and the second radar. A sensitivity model that adjusts each radar’s measured power level according to the azimuth-dependent relationship of Schiffmann et al. (‘516), given the azimuth offset between the two differently mounted radars of Zeleny et al. (‘646), is therefore taught by the combination. One would have been motivated to do so because the two radars are mounted at different azimuth angles and Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches that the received amplitudes vary with azimuth, so that adjusting each radar’s power for the azimuth offset prevents the mounting-angle difference from being misread as a power degradation by the monitoring of Elwart et al. (’165). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Schiffmann et al. (‘516) provides an operative azimuth-to-amplitude relationship for a two-radar vehicle installation and Zeleny et al. (‘646) provides the mounting angles.
Regarding Claim 9, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: performing a calibration process on the first radar ([0057]: “Any suitable auto-alignment process (sometimes referred to as a “self-calibration” process) may be used to estimate the sensor’s mounting angle”; [0054]). Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches that a radar sensor is configured to perform an auto-alignment (self-calibration) process to correct for deviations affecting its returns.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach detecting additional radar data from the first radar having a first power level that is below the relative power by at least the threshold difference as the condition for performing the calibration process. However, Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches the relative power between two overlapping radars as an amplitude ratio for a commonly detected object ([0020]: “Amplitude ratio Ar refers to the ratio of the sensed amplitudes of the received signal returns from the two sensors 12A and 12b”; [0041]), providing the baseline against which a departure is measured.
Additionally, Elwart et al. (’165) teaches that a radar sensor’s return-signal magnitude (power level) is compared to a threshold, and that a magnitude falling below that threshold indicates a degradation condition ([0020]: “the magnitude of the return signal 124 may be less than a threshold value”; [0061]: “the controller may compare the return signal magnitude to a threshold”; [0062]: “If the return signal magnitude is less than the threshold, then there may be a possibility of a blocked sensor”). In the combination, the threshold comparison of Elwart et al. (’165) is applied to the relative power baseline of Schiffmann et al. (‘516); detecting that the first radar’s power level has fallen below the relative power by at least the threshold difference is the direct application of Elwart’s below-threshold detection to the relative-power metric, and responsively performing the calibration process of Zeleny et al. (‘646) on the first radar is taught.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the calibration (self-calibration/auto-alignment) process taught by Zeleny et al. (‘646) on the first radar upon detecting, via the relative-power comparison of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and the threshold-based degradation determination of Elwart et al. (’165), that the first radar’s power level has fallen below the relative power by at least the threshold difference. One would have been motivated to do so because Zeleny et al. (‘646) already teaches self-calibrating a radar to correct for deviations affecting its returns and triggering that calibration in response to a detected below-baseline power departure directly addresses the degradation that the combined system monitors. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Zeleny et al. (‘646) demonstrates an operative self-calibration process for the same vehicle-mounted radar sensors.
Regarding Claim 10, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: performing a calibration process on the second radar ([0057]: “Any suitable auto-alignment process (sometimes referred to as a “self-calibration” process) may be used to estimate the sensor’s mounting angle”; [0054]).
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach detecting additional radar data from the second radar having a second power level that is above the relative power by at least the threshold difference as the condition for performing the calibration process. However, Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches the relative power between two overlapping radars as an amplitude ratio for a commonly detected object ([0020], [0041]), providing the baseline against which a departure is measured.
Additionally, Elwart et al. (’165) teaches comparing a radar’s return-signal magnitude to a threshold to detect a departure ([0061]: “the controller may compare the return signal magnitude to a threshold”). Elwart et al. (’165) expressly teaches detecting a departure in the below-threshold direction ([0062]); a PHOSITA would have understood that detecting a departure in the opposite direction - i.e., that the second radar’s power level is above the relative power by at least the threshold difference - is the same mathematical comparison with the inequality reversed, well within routine skill. Moreover, in a two-sensor relative comparison, the relative power of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) is a baseline derived from both radars’ amplitudes; when one radar’s power drops below that baseline (as in Claim 9), the other radar’s power is simultaneously above the baseline from its frame of reference, so the same threshold-exceeding deviation that flags one radar as below-baseline inherently reveals the other as above-baseline. In the combination, detecting that the second radar’s power level is above the relative power by at least the threshold difference and responsively performing the calibration process of Zeleny et al. (‘646) on the second radar is taught.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the calibration process taught by Zeleny et al. (‘646) on the second radar upon detecting that its power level is above the relative power by at least the threshold difference. One would have been motivated to do so because the same cross-sensor monitoring that detects a below-baseline departure (Claim 9) inherently reveals the corresponding above-baseline departure in the other sensor, and calibrating the sensor so identified corrects the detected deviation. A PHOSITA would further have recognized that an anomalously high reading from a radar relative to the Schiffmann et al. (‘516) amplitude-ratio baseline - whether from calibration drift, hardware anomaly, or the reciprocal effect of the other radar’s degradation - is equally indicative of a sensor requiring recalibration, and that Zeleny’s self-calibration process applies to either condition. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Zeleny et al. (‘646) demonstrates an operative self-calibration process for the same vehicle-mounted radar sensors.
Regarding Claim 11, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: determining an azimuth offset based on first mount parameters for the first radar and second mount parameters for the second radar ([0030]: “Each of the sensors 12 may be mounted to the vehicle 10 at a respective position and angle (‘mounting angle’)”; [0049]: “nominal mounting angle γ1 is about +37 degrees and nominal mounting angle γ2 is about −37 degrees”). The per-sensor mounting angles and positions constitute the first and second mount parameters, and the difference between the two sensors’ mounting angles constitutes the azimuth offset determined from those mount parameters.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach generating a sensitivity model to include the azimuth offset, but Schiffmann et al. (‘516) teaches: generating a sensitivity model to include the azimuth offset; and wherein determining the relative power between the first radar and the second radar comprises: determining the relative power using the sensitivity model ([0020]: “Using a point reflector move to varying locations in the overlapping coverage zone 15 of the two sensors 12A and 12B, and construct a lookup table which maps range R and amplitude ratio AR into azimuth angle of the object 16”; [0041]: “routine 120 estimates the azimuth angle θ of the object using range R, the amplitude ratio AR, and a lookup table”). Schiffmann et al. (‘516) generates, by calibration, a stored model incorporating the angular relationship between the two separated radars and their respective received amplitudes and uses that model whenever the two radars’ amplitudes are processed for a common object. Zeleny et al. (‘646) supplies the azimuth offset derived from the radars’ mount parameters.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the sensitivity model of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) so as to incorporate the azimuth offset derived from the mount parameters of Zeleny et al. (‘646), and to determine the relative power using that model. One would have been motivated to do so for the same reason given for Claim 7 - to prevent the radars’ differing mounting azimuths from corrupting the relative-power comparison - and because Zeleny et al. (‘646) expressly discloses the mounting angles that define the offset while Schiffmann et al. (‘516) discloses the calibrated model that consumes it. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Zeleny et al. (‘646) provides the mounting angles and Schiffmann et al. (‘516) provides the operative azimuth-to-amplitude model for a two-radar vehicle installation.
Regarding Claim 16, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the system according to Claim 15.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: transform the first radar data into a vehicle frame based on first mount parameters for the first radar; transform the second radar data into the vehicle frame based on second mount parameters for the second radar; and determine the relative power between the first radar and the second radar based on the first radar data and the second radar data transformed into the vehicle frame ([0030]: “Each of the sensors 12 may be mounted to the vehicle 10 at a respective position and angle (‘mounting angle’)”; [0052]: “the second sensor 12b may be configured to transform its detections/tracks from its local coordinate system 26 into the vehicle coordinate system 19”). Zeleny et al. (‘646) expressly transforms each sensor’s detection data from that sensor’s local coordinate system into the vehicle coordinate system using the sensor’s mounting parameters; the vehicle coordinate system 19 constitutes the vehicle frame, and the per-sensor mounting positions and angles constitute the first and second mount parameters. The relative-power determination supplied in the base combination by Schiffmann et al. (‘516) is thus performed on the first and second radar data after transformation into the vehicle frame.
Regarding Claim 17, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the system according to Claim 15.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) teaches: alert one or more vehicle systems to a reduced performance of the first radar or the second radar ([0077]: “an alert signal or a blockage detection signal may be generated and sent through a bus 114 to CAN transceiver 120 and communicated on the CAN bus 66”; [0078]: the blockage detection signal “may be indicative of the existence or the potential existence of a blockage which undesirably blocks portions of the RF energy … thereby affecting the effectiveness of the SOD system 100”). Zeleny et al. (‘646) communicates a blockage detection signal - indicative of reduced radar effectiveness - over the vehicle CAN bus to other vehicle systems, and Elwart et al. (’165) likewise outputs the blocked-sensor status to other vehicle modules ([0056]: “The controller may output the status of the return signal to other modules and functions”). The “or” alternative requires only one of the first radar or the second radar to be addressed, and both references alert other vehicle systems to a single radar’s reduced performance.
Regarding Claim 18, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the system according to Claim 15.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach adjusting a detection threshold for a radar, responding to a detected degradation by activating an alert, but Elwart et al. (’165) teaches: adjust a detection threshold for at least one of the first radar and the second radar ([0063]: “A collision warning function may be operated with increased detection thresholds to reduce sensitivity”.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the detection threshold of a degraded radar as taught by Elwart et al. (’165) within the combined system. One would have been motivated to do so because Elwart et al. (’165) teaches that increasing the detection threshold of a degraded radar reduces false detections arising from the unreliable return signal while preserving partial operation ([0063]), directly addressing the degradation that the combined system detects. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Elwart et al. (’165) demonstrates the threshold adjustment as operative for the same automotive radar return signal.
Claims 2, 3, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeleny et al. ('646) in view of Schiffmann et al. ('516) and Elwart et al. ('165) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0196798 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach integrating radar data over a threshold duration, but Chen et al. (‘798) teaches: integrating the first radar data received from the first radar data and the second radar data received from the second radar over a threshold duration ([0308]: “merging or stacking of more than one frame of radar measurement data … resulting in a radar observation time of up to few seconds as an input”). Zeleny et al. (‘646) combines the first and second sensors’ data but does not express that combination as occurring over a threshold duration; Chen et al. (‘798) acknowledges that merging or stacking more than one frame of radar measurement data over an observation time - a threshold duration - is a known radar signal-processing technique. Applying frame-stacking over an observation time to the integration of the first and second radar data in the combined system yields integrating the first and second radar data over a threshold duration.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the first and second radar data over a threshold duration as taught by Chen et al. (‘798) in the combined system. One would have been motivated to do so because Chen et al. (‘798) teaches that merging or stacking more than one frame of radar measurement data over an observation time of up to a few seconds yields a richer input for the radar determination, directly improving the reliability of the relative-power comparison between the two overlapping radars. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because accumulating radar measurement frames over an observation window is a conventional radar processing technique that Chen et al. (‘798) demonstrates is operative for automotive radar data.
Regarding Claims 3 and 19, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 2 and the system according to Claim 15, respectively. Claim 3 recites that the threshold duration comprises a plurality of coherent processing intervals and Claim 19 recites integrating across a plurality of coherent processing intervals; the two claims recite the same coherent processing interval limitation and are addressed together.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach coherent processing intervals, but Chen et al. (‘798) teaches: wherein the threshold duration comprises a plurality of coherent processing intervals (Claim 3) and integrate first radar data from the first radar and second radar data from the second radar across a plurality of coherent processing intervals ([0139]: “For each chirp, the data cube 504 includes L samples … arranged in the so-called “fast time”-direction. The data cube 504 includes samples for K chirps, which are arranged in the so-called “slow time”-direction”; [0141]: “The radar processor 503 then processes the result of the processing of the data cube 504 by the first FFT by a second FFT along the chirps”; [0308]: “merging or stacking of more than one frame of radar measurement data”). Chen et al. (‘798) teaches that a frame of radar measurement data is formed by coherently processing a set of K chirps via a Doppler (slow-time) FFT - a coherent processing interval - and that more than one such frame is merged or stacked, i.e., a plurality of coherent processing intervals.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the first and second radar data over a threshold duration spanning a plurality of coherent processing intervals, as acknowledged by Chen et al. (‘798). One would have been motivated to do so because accumulating radar measurements across multiple coherent processing intervals over observation time increases the available signal observation and reduces the effect of noise and transient conditions on the resulting measurement, which directly benefits the relative-power comparison of the combined system by yielding a more stable relative power against which departures can be judged. Chen et al. (‘798) confirms that this multi-frame stacking technique is conventional in automotive radar signal processing ([0308]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because coherent processing of chirps into frames and accumulation across multiple frames are established automotive radar operations, as evidenced by Chen et al. (‘798) at [0139-0141].
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeleny et al. ('646) in view of Schiffmann et al. ('516) and Elwart et al. ('165) and further in view of Klar et al. (US 2020/0408890 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 7; and regarding Claim 12, the same combination teaches the method according to Claim 11. Claim 8 recites that the sensitivity model is further configured to adjust the power levels based on a frequency offset between a first frequency used by the first radar and a second frequency used by the second radar, and Claim 12 recites determining a frequency offset between the first and second radar data and generating the sensitivity model to include the frequency offset; the two claims recite the same frequency-offset limitation and are addressed together.
Neither Zeleny et al. (‘646), Schiffmann et al. (‘516), nor Elwart et al. (’165) teaches a frequency offset between the two radars. Klar et al. (’890) teaches: wherein the sensitivity model is further configured to adjust the first power level and the second power level based on a frequency offset between a first frequency used by the first radar and a second frequency used by the second radar (Claim 8) and determining a frequency offset between the first radar data and the second radar data; and generating the sensitivity model to include the frequency offset ([0015]: “a frequency offset between the two radar sensors is capable of being determined and compensated”; [0029]: “with the use of FMCW ramps as transmit signals, given a rise of 5 MHz/μs a frequency offset of 50 kHz results”). Klar et al. (’890) teaches that when two vehicle radar sensors with partially overlapping fields of view transmit, a frequency offset between them arises from differences in their local oscillators, and that this offset is determined and compensated. Incorporating the determined frequency offset of Klar et al. (’890) into the sensitivity model of the combined system, so that the model adjusts the measured power levels for that frequency offset, is taught by the combination.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the sensitivity model to determine and account for the frequency offset between the two radars, as taught by Klar (‘890). One would have been motivated to do so because Klar et al. (’890) teaches, for two overlapping vehicle radar sensors, that a frequency offset between them arises from differing oscillator characteristics and must be determined and compensated to avoid corrupting the comparison of the two sensors’ data ([0015], [0029]); accounting for that offset in the sensitivity model keeps the two radars’ measured powers comparable in the relative-power determination of the combined system, for the same reason the azimuth offset is accounted for under Claims 7 and 11. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Klar et al. (’890) demonstrates determining and compensating the frequency offset between two overlapping vehicle radar sensors of the same kind used in the combined system.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeleny et al. ('646) in view of Schiffmann et al. ('516) and Elwart et al. ('165) and further in view of Millar et al. (US 2017/0269196 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach generating two-dimensional images with power-representing bins. Millar et al. (’196) teaches: generating a first two-dimensional image based on the first radar data and a second two-dimensional image based on the second radar data, wherein the first two-dimensional image includes bins representing power measurements for surfaces in the first field of view of the first radar and the second two-dimensional image includes bins representing power measurements for surfaces in the second field of view of the second radar; and determining the relative power between the first radar and the second radar based on a comparison between bins in the first two-dimensional image and bins in the second two-dimensional image corresponding to a particular object ([0065]: “The second FFT converts the two-dimensional array of range bins over time into a two-dimensional array of range/Doppler bins … Each range/Doppler bin will have a corresponding magnitude (signal strength) and phase”; [0076]: “Each range-Doppler bin in the two-dimensional FFT may be mapped into a corresponding pixel of the DMI”; [0077]: “The signal strength (sometimes referred to as “magnitude” or “amplitude”) of the different pixels may represent average signal strength”). Millar et al. (’196) teaches that automotive radar data is processed into a two-dimensional array of range/Doppler bins, each bin having a corresponding magnitude, and that these bins are mapped into pixels of an image.
The base combination already compares the two radars’ received powers for the same object of interest (Schiffmann et al. (‘516), [0041]). Generating the two-dimensional power-bin image of Millar et al. (’196) for each of the first and second radars and comparing the bins corresponding to that common object to determine the relative power, is taught by the combination.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate, for each radar, a two-dimensional image of bins representing power measurements as taught by Millar et al. (’196), and to determine the relative power by comparing corresponding bins. One would have been motivated to do so because Millar et al. (’196) teaches that representing radar return power in a two-dimensional array of range/Doppler bins is an established basis for assessing automotive radar performance and detecting blockage ([0065], [0072]), and because the bin representation localizes the return power of a particular object in range and Doppler, allowing the combined system to select the bins belonging to the common object it already compares rather than an aggregate amplitude. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Millar et al. (’196) demonstrates that the two-dimensional power-bin representation is operative for the same type of automotive radar return signal.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeleny et al. ('646) in view of Schiffmann et al. ('516) and Elwart et al. ('165) and further in view of Rice (US 2018/0015907 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Zeleny et al. (‘646) in view of Schiffmann et al. (‘516) and Elwart et al. (’165) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Zeleny et al. (‘646) does not explicitly teach triggering a cleaning process at a radar. Rice (’907) teaches: wherein generating the alert further comprises: triggering a cleaning process at the first radar or the second radar ([0023]: “the vehicle computing system 50 can transmit one or more control signals to one or more components of the sensor cleaning system 100 to trigger or cause the sensor cleaning system 100 to clean one or more sensors of the vehicle 10”). The recited “or” alternative requires triggering cleaning at only one of the first or second radar, which Rice (’907) teaches.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trigger the sensor-cleaning process of Rice (’907) at a radar identified as degraded in the combined system. One would have been motivated to do so because the degradation that the combined system detects is expressly caused by foreign matter on the sensor (Zeleny et al. (‘646), [0042]: the sensor may be “partially shadowed by snow or mud” and must be “cleaned”; Elwart et al. (’165), [0023]: “mud, ice, or snow in front of the radar unit may obstruct the radar function”), and Rice (’907) teaches a computing-system-triggered cleaning process that removes such contaminants from vehicle sensors ([0023]); triggering cleaning in response to the detected power degradation directly remedies the identified cause of that degradation. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Rice (’907) demonstrates an operative, computing-system-triggered cleaning process for vehicle sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uesato (US 2010/0134344 A1) teaches that the received level of a vehicle radar varies with azimuth angle according to the antenna pattern, and that a detected azimuth angle is judged true or false by comparing the composite-wave level against a reference value.
Cho et al. (US 2021/0149041 A1) teaches a method for improving radar data resolution using a resolution increase model and reference data.
Ru et al. (US 2019/0187250 A1) teaches an apparatus and method for detecting alignment of a radar sensor in an automotive detection system, including determining a relative misalignment angle between first and second sensors having overlapping coverage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights