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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1-28-2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 7 and 17 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.
As per claims 3 and 17, the phrase “partially be sensed” makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear how a subarray can only partially sense a target. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 7, the phrase “imminent driving maneuver” makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear how the system will know a driver is about to make a maneuver. Further clarification is required.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkel, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0333431, published October 22, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 12, Volkel discloses a method for sensing surroundings of a vehicle by means of a sensor system, wherein the sensor system comprises an antenna array, wherein antenna elements of the antenna array are arranged so as to be distributed on the vehicle (Volkel, ¶66), the method comprising:
sensing a surroundings region of the surroundings using a first subarray of the antenna array, wherein the first subarray comprises a first field of view that extends at least partially within the surroundings region; sensing the surroundings region of the surroundings using at least one second subarray of the antenna array, wherein the second subarray comprises a second field of view that extends at least partially within the surroundings region; determining an overlapping region of the first and second field of view on the basis of at least partially overlapping edge regions of the first and second field of view (Volkel, Fig. 7 and ¶42 and 69);
checking the overlapping region with regard to whether an object to be detected is located within the overlapping region, and if the object is within the overlapping region: selectively determining a combination array that is composed of antenna elements of the first and second subarray, on the basis of the overlapping region and the at least one object to be detected, wherein the combination array comprises a combination field of view that is composed of parts of the first and second field of view, wherein the at least one object is detectable using the combination field of view; and sensing the surroundings region of the surroundings using the combination array (Volkel, Fig. 7 and ¶42 using regions A and B for sensing).
Volkel fails to explicitly disclose selecting a “combination array”. Instead data from existing A and B are used. Volkel suggests using various subarray shapes and sizes (¶49) and therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to combine an array, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Volkel in providing for detection of a target in an overlapping array area.
As per claims 2 and 16, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, during the checking of the overlapping region, checking whether the at least one object to be detected can be sensed using one or more of the first subarray and the second subarray (Volkel, ¶42).
As per claims 3 and 17, as best understood by examiner, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the combination array is determined so that the at least one object to be detected is located within the overlapping region and the at least one object to be detected can only partially be sensed by the first subarray and by the second subarray (Volkel, ¶42).
As per claims 4 and 18, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein, if the at least one object to be detected is located within the overlapping region and the at least one object to be detected can be sensed by the first subarray and by the second subarray, the first subarray and the second subarray is adjusted and/or at least one further subarray of the antenna array is used to sense the surroundings region (Volkel, ¶37 using beam steering).
As per claims 5 and 19, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, if no object to be detected is located in the overlapping region, the surroundings region of the surroundings is sensed using the first and/or second subarray (Volkel, ¶69 providing surroundings scanning).
As per claims 6 and 20, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an item of surroundings information relating to the surroundings of the vehicle and/or a traffic situation in the surroundings of the vehicle and/or a current and/or future driving scenario of the vehicle is taken into account during determination of the combination array (Volkel, ¶69 providing vehicle control).
As per claim 7, as best understood by examiner, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, on the basis of a current and/or immediately imminent driving maneuver of the vehicle, a region in the surroundings of the vehicle which is relevant with regard to the current and/or immediately imminent driving maneuver is specified as the surroundings region (Volkel, ¶24 and 53).
As per claim 8, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein, on the basis of the current and/or immediately imminent driving maneuver and/or the surroundings region, it is specified which subarrays of the antenna array and/or what number of subarrays of the antenna array are used for sensing the surroundings region (Volkel, ¶24 and 53).
As per claim 9, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the surroundings region is sensed using the combination array with regard to the at least one object to be detected and/or with regard to potential collision objects (Volkel, ¶24 and 53).
As per claim 10, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein further subarrays of the antenna array can be adjusted on the basis of the combination array and combination field of view, wherein the further subarrays can be adjusted on an ongoing basis proceeding from the combination array (Volkel, ¶24 and 49).
As per claim 11, Volkel further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an item of information relating to the sensed surroundings region is generated using a processor of the sensor system and is at least provided to a vehicle system and/or environment model (Volkel, ¶69, vehicle control).
As per claim 13, Volkel further discloses the sensor system of claim 12, wherein the antenna array is configurable such that individual antenna elements of the multiple antenna elements can be compiled into various subarrays (Volkel, Fig. 10).
As per claim 14, Volkel further discloses a vehicle having the sensor system of claim 12 (Volkel, ¶53).
As per claim 15, Volkel further discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the multiple antenna elements of the antenna array are arranged so as to be distributed at a distance from one another on the vehicle (Fig. 10 showing separation between subarrays).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights