DETAILED NON-FINAL 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 July 9, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 2-20 are NEWLY-ADDED.
It is further noted that claims 1-20 are presently pending.
The drawings January 17, 2025 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of January 17, 2025 and of May 2, 2025 have 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), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-20 are 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.
In independent claim 1 as newly-amended, the claim language, “a representation of objects in an environment of the vehicle to be generated from the reflections” (lines 10-12) is indefinite and unclear in context in that the verb phrase, “to be generated” expresses intended action without claiming that action clearly and definitely.
In independent claim 1 as newly-amended, the claim language, “a representation of objects in an environment of the vehicle to be generated from the reflections, the representation indicating, for a detected object, a position in azimuth and in elevation” (lines 10-13) is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether the “objects” (plural) are represented collectively by the “representation” (singular), or, whether it is intended that plural “objects” are represented individually by plural representations. Substantially the same remarks apply to lines 6-8 of independent claim 11 (“generating, from the reflections, a representation of objects …”).
Each of dependent claims 2-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 12-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 11.
Prior Art Rejections
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.
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 radar systems.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bialer (‘912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172).
The text of independent claim 1 as newly-amended is as follows:
“1. A system comprising: a phased array radar assembly configured to be attached to a vehicle, wherein the phased array radar assembly comprises: a plurality of antennas arranged in a two-dimensional array; transmitter circuitry configured to transmit millimeter signals via the plurality of antennas; and receiver circuitry configured to receive reflections of the millimeter wave signals via the plurality of antennas, a representation of objects in an environment of the vehicle to be generated from the reflections, the representation indicating for a detected object, a position in azimuth and in elevation; and control circuitry configured to cause the vehicle to perform a driving action based on the representation”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Bialer (‘912) plainly discloses, “A system” (line 1), noting, for example, paragraph [0001] (noting, “radar systems for vehicles”).
The claim 1, “phased array radar system configured to be attached to a vehicle” (line 2) is met in Bialer (‘912) by the disclosed phased array radar attached to a vehicle, noting, for example, paragraph [0041] at lines 3-8 (“array”; “phase shifter”); paragraph [0042] at lines 1-2 (“phased array”); drawing Figure 1; and, paragraph [0008].
The claim 1, “a plurality of antennas arranged in a two-dimensional array” (line 4) is met in Bialer (‘912) by the two-dimensional array of the antennas for “multiple transmitters” 220 and for “multiple receivers” 222 as illustrated in drawing Figure 2, noting, for example, paragraph [0026]. Please note on lines 8-9 of paragraph [0044] of Bialer (‘912) the “two dimensional signal matrix” and the “2D FFT,” suggesting receiving echoes in a two-dimensional array.
The claim 1, “transmitter circuitry configured to transmit millimeter wave signals via the plurality of antennas” is substantially-met in Bialer (‘912) by the “multiple transmitters” 220, except Bialer (‘912) does not disclosure the claimed feature of “millimeter wave signals.”
Pfizenmaier et al (‘172), in the same field of endeavor as Bialer (‘912) (vehicle radars), teaches the use of millimeter-wave microwave signals in a vehicle radar for the advantages of “ascertaining obstacles”; improved resolution; and, “smaller feeder elements” (column 6 at line 63 through column 7 at line 10.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use millimeter waves in Bialer (‘912) as taught by Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Pfizenmaier et al (‘172), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The claim 1 limitation, “receiver circuitry configured to receive reflections of the millimeter wave signals via the plurality of antennas” (lines 9-10) is met by the applied combination of Bialer et al (912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) as set forth above.
The claim 1 limitation, “representation of objects in an environment of the vehicle to be generated from the reflections, the representation indicating for a detected object, a position in azimuth and in elevation” (lines 11-13) is met by the applied combination of Bialer et al (912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) as set forth above. In Bialer (‘912) of the applied combination, please note, for example, paragraph [0016] (“representation of the objects”); paragraph [0023] at lines 2-5; paragraph [0026] at lines 12-14 (‘redirected radar signals”; “for processing”); paragraph [0030] at lines 1-4; paragraph [0040] at lines 1-11 (“localize”; “determine the position”; “range azimuth and elevation angles”; “velocity”; “static”; “dynamic”); paragraph [0045] (“object determination and recognition and parameter estimation”; “track the determined objects”; “generate an object map”); page 6, left column, claim 7 (“mapping”); page 6, right column, claim 10 (“generate a target map”); and, page 6, right column, claim 14 (“mapping”).
The claim 1 limitation, “control circuitry configured to cause the vehicle to perform a driving action based on the representation” (lines 14-15) is met by the applied combination of Bialer et al (912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) as set forth above. In Bialer (‘912) of the applied combination, please note, for example, paragraph [0032] (“controller 104”; “implements appropriate vehicle action based on this information”), and, paragraph [0033] (noting that the “control circuitry” could be any of various processor, microprocessor, computer circuitry, and so on.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 as newly-amended is plainly shown in the applied combination of Bialer et al (912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172), independent claim 1 is obvious over the applied combination of Bialer et al (912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the further limitations as met by the applied combination of Bialer et al (912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. In Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) of the applied combination, please note column 7 at lines 5-7 (“10-100 GHz”; “76-77 GHz”).
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 3, in that the device of the applied combination processes all of the parameters recited in the claim, and, in that the data are taken with reference to range gates (e.g., Bialer (‘912); paragraph [0051] at lines 3-4, “multiple detections are made per range gate”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the data for processing in any suitable format in its storage in memory, including as voxels, with a reasonable likelihood of success. In Bialer (‘912) of the applied combination, please note, for example, paragraph [0016] (“representation of the objects”); paragraph [0023] at lines 2-5; paragraph [0026] at lines 12-14 (‘redirected radar signals”; “for processing”); paragraph [0030] at lines 1-4; paragraph [0040] at lines 1-11 (“localize”; “determine the position”; “range azimuth and elevation angles”; “velocity”; “static”; “dynamic”); paragraph [0045] (“object determination and recognition and parameter estimation”; “track the determined objects”; “generate an object map”); page 6, left column, claim 7 (“mapping”); page 6, right column, claim 10 (“generate a target map”); and, page 6, right column, claim 14 (“mapping”).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 4, in that Bialer (‘912) of the applied combination discloses the use of GPS in the overall device/system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to use the disclosed GPS device in operating the overall claimed device in order to optimize the functioning of the device. In Bialer (‘912) of the applied combination, please note page 2, right column, lines 1 and 7 (“GPS”), and, paragraph [0040] at line 7 (“global reference coordinate”).
Next, taking the further limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, these are substantially-met by the applied combination as set forth above in that in Bialer (‘912) there are “multiple transmitters” 220; “multiple receivers” 222; “multiple antenna arrays and “multiple radars” (page 5, right column, lines 18-19); and paragraph [0051] at lines 1-2 (“multiple antenna arrays”). In that the multiple radar units in Bialer (‘912) are not disclosed as being all located in the same location of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the multiple radar units would be located at “different respective locations” (claim 5) on the vehicle, 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 place the radar units at positions “distributed about the vehicle” (claim 6) in order to optimize the field of view for the radar system, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 11 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 12 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2, in that claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 2.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 13 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 3, in that claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 3.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 12 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2, in that claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 2.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 14 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 4, in that claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 4.
The remarks with respect to dependent claims 15 and 16 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claims 5 and 6, in that claims 15 and 16 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bialer (‘912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) and further in view of Kitahara et al (‘079).
Taking the further limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, these are substantially-met by the applied combination of Bialer (‘912) in view of Pfizenmaier et al (‘172) as set forth above in that in Bialer (‘912) there are “multiple transmitters” 220; “multiple receivers” 222; “multiple antenna arrays and “multiple radars” (page 5, right column, lines 18-19); and paragraph [0051] at lines 1-2 (“multiple antenna arrays”). In that the multiple radar units in Bialer (‘912) are not disclosed as being all located in the same location of the vehicle, and in that Kitahara et al (‘079) teaches placing radar antennas around the vehicle for the advantage of receiving echoes from surrounding objects (column 2, lines 24-37), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the multiple radar units would be located at “different respective locations” (claim 5) on the vehicle as taught by Kitahara et al (‘079) in order to obtain the advantage taught by Kitahara et al (‘079), 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 place the radar units at positions “distributed about the vehicle” (claim 6) to place the multiple radar units “distributed about the vehicle” as taught by Kitahara et al (‘079) in order to obtain the advantage taught by Kitahara et al (‘079).
The remarks with respect to dependent claims 15 and 16 are substantially those made above in this office action section with respect to dependent claims 5 and 6, in that claims 15 and 16 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus of claims 5 and 6.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7 combined with those of independent claim 1, nor would those limitations of claim 7 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9 combined with those of independent claim 1, nor would those limitations of claim 9 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17 combined with those of independent claim 11, nor would those limitations of claim 17 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19 combined with those of independent claim 11, nor would those limitations of claim 19 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
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
