CTNF 19/078,331 CTNF 95996 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This Office action is in response to the application filed on 03/13/2025. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, which was 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 submitted on 03/13/2025 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5 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. Regarding claim 1: 07-34-03 AIA The term “ difficult ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ difficult ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This leads to indefiniteness regarding when the control unit is configured to determine a correction coefficient. For examination purposes, claim 1 is interpreted as if the control unit were configured to determine whether it is difficult for the radar sensor to measure an accurate distance to the specific structure based on some objective trigger such as a presence of the specific structure or a comparison of a detected value to a threshold. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required . Regarding claim 4: In claim 4, it is unclear whether the recitations of “a distance-measurable target” and “a distance to the distance-measurable target” refer back to “a target” and “a distance to a target” introduced in claim 1. This lack of clarity leads to indefiniteness regarding the interpretation of the target(s) and distance(s). For examination purposes, claim 4 is interpreted as if the distance-measurable target and the distance to the target refer to the target and distance to the target introduced in claim 1. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required. Regarding claims 2-5: Claims 2-5 are rejected because of their dependency upon rejected claims . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki (US 2019/0001978 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (WO 2024/257233 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sekiguchi . Regarding claim 1: Takaki discloses the following limitations: “A vehicle travel control device comprising: a camera sensor and a radar sensor that measure a distance to a target as a first distance and a second distance, respectively.” (Takaki ¶ 16 discloses “an apparatus for controlling an own vehicle that is travelling on a reference road section, the own vehicle including a radar device and an imaging device that are each configured to perform a target-object detection operation. The apparatus includes a first obtainer configured to obtain first location information about a radar-detected object in accordance with a result of the target-object detection operation performed by the radar device. The first location information includes a first distance of the radar-detected object relative to the own vehicle and a first azimuth of the radar-detected object relative to the own vehicle. The apparatus includes a second obtainer configured to obtain second location information about an image-detected object located on an objective road section based on a result of the target-object detection operation performed by the imaging device. The second location information includes a second distance of the image-detected object relative to the own vehicle and a second azimuth of the image-detected object relative to the own vehicle.” Note that the “first distance” and “second distance” of Takaki read on the “second distance” and “first distance” of instant claim 1, respectively.) “and a control unit that executes travel control for reducing a possibility of a collision between a host vehicle and an obstacle when it is determined that the obstacle is present in a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the host vehicle based on detection results of the camera sensor and the radar sensor.” (Takaki ¶¶ 39-42: “FIG. 1 schematically illustrates a pre-crash safety (PCS) system 100 based on a vehicle control apparatus according to the present embodiment installed in an own vehicle 50. The PCS system 100 is capable of 1. Recognizing an object located around the own vehicle 50, such as ahead of the own vehicle 50 in the travelling direction of the own vehicle 50, i.e. in the forward direction of the own vehicle 50 2. Performing control tasks of the own vehicle 50 including a collision avoidance operation to avoid collision between the recognized object and the own vehicle 50 and/or a damage mitigation operation to mitigate damage due to collision therebetween upon determining that there is a possibility of the own vehicle 50 colliding with the recognized object… the PCS system 100 includes an electronic control unit (ECU) 10, a radar device 21, an imaging device 22, which are an example of object detection sensors, a navigation system 23, and cruise assist devices 30.”) “wherein: the control unit stores a relationship between the first distance and a correction coefficient determined in advance for a plurality of first distances, the correction coefficient being a coefficient for the first distance for determining, based on the first distance, a fusion distance based on the first distance and the second distance.” (Takaki ¶ 156: “the ECU 10 includes relationship information I1 stored in, for example, the ROM 12b of the memory 12.” Additionally, Takaki ¶ 32 and FIG. 6B shown below: “FIG. 6B is a graph schematically illustrating a relationship between a correction amount, the gradient difference, and the position of the center of the lower end of the preceding vehicle in the captured image in its vertical direction upon the gradient difference being positive. Additionally, Takaki ¶¶ 152-153: “the ECU 10 sets a correction amount DA for the image detection point Pi, and moves the image detection point Pi to be closer to the own vehicle 50 by the correction amount DA in the distance direction. The ECU 10 for example sets the correction amount DA for the image detection point Pi in accordance with the relative gradient difference Δα and the position of the center of the lower end of the preceding vehicle 60 in the captured image in the vertical direction.”) PNG media_image1.png 341 502 media_image1.png Greyscale “and when it is determined that a specific structure is present in the predetermined area, … the control unit determines a correction coefficient from the relationship based on the first distance for the specific structure, determines a fusion distance to the specific structure as a product of the determined correction coefficient and the first distance for the specific structure.” (Takaki ¶ 152 discloses that for a detected object 60, the system uses the relationship illustrated in FIG. 6B such that “the ECU 10 sets a correction amount DA for the image detection point Pi, and moves the image detection point Pi to be closer to the own vehicle 50 by the correction amount DA in the distance direction” to obtain a corrected image detection point. Note that while Takaki describes performing this step based on adding the correction amount DA, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this relationship could also be represented using an equation that multiplies the first distance by a specified correction amount in order to achieve the same result.) “and executes the travel control for the specific structure based on the determined fusion distance to the specific structure.” (Takaki ¶¶ 112-117 disclose that braking and/or steering of the vehicle can be controlled in order “to avoid a collision between the own vehicle 50 and the fusion target object or mitigate damage due to collision therebetween.”) Takaki does not specifically disclose that, “when it is determined that a specific structure is present in the predetermined area, a distance to the specific structure being measurable by the camera sensor but it being difficult for the radar sensor to measure an accurate distance to the specific structure, the control unit determines a correction coefficient from the relationship based on the first distance for the specific structure, determines a fusion distance to the specific structure.” However, Sekiguchi does teach this limitation. (Sekiguchi ¶ 74: “When the object to be detected approaches a structure with high radar reflectivity, the radar reflected wave signal from the object may be buried by the radar reflected wave signal from the structure, causing the detection data of radar 1 to be lost and making it difficult for radar 1 to detect the object. The object detection device 100A maintains the detection accuracy of fusion-type object detection by replacing the detection data of the radar 1 with the detection data of the camera 2. In other words, the object detection device 100A calculates the camera detection position 41 based on the radar detection position 31, and generates vehicle control data for controlling the vehicle using the calculated camera detection position 41 instead of the radar detection position 31.”) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Takaki by determining a correction coefficient and a fusion distance when it is difficult for the radar sensor to measure an accurate distance to a structure as taught by Sekiguchi, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., performing the steps based on mistrust of the radar sensor data) for another (i.e., performing the steps based on mistrust of the camera sensor data) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have changed the system to operate based on radar inaccuracies rather than camera inaccuracies to achieve the predictable result of providing a system that produces accurate object sensing data in situations where radar data is inaccurate. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this could be useful when applied during scenarios that can cause radar data inaccuracies, such as driving through congested urban environments or the presence of certain weather conditions. Regarding claim 3: Takaki in view of Sekiguchi teaches “The vehicle travel control device according to claim 1,” and Takaki also teaches “wherein the relationship is a relationship among the first distance, a road surface gradient, and the correction coefficient determined in advance for a plurality of first distances and a plurality of road surface gradients for the traveling direction of the host vehicle.” (Takaki FIG. 6B illustrates a plurality of characteristics curves CCn each relating position to road gradient and correction amount, and Takaki ¶ 156 discloses that this relationship information is stored in the memory of the ECU.) 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki in view of Sekiguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2023/0038842 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yu . Regarding claim 2: Takaki in view of Sekiguchi teaches “The vehicle travel control device according to claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the specific structure is a curbstone of a road or a step between a roadway and a sidewalk.” However, Yu does teach this limitation. (Yu ¶ 32: “The positioning subsystem can use the positioning data, e.g., GPS and IMU data) in conjunction with the sensing data to help accurately determine the location of the AV with respect to fixed objects of the driving environment 101 (e.g. roadways, lane boundaries, intersections, sidewalks, crosswalks, road signs, curbs , surrounding buildings, etc.) whose locations can be provided by map information 135.” This at least teaches the specific structure being “a curbstone of a road” as claimed.) Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 2 , consistent with the specification, the specific structure being “a curbstone of a road or a step between a roadway and a sidewalk” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “a curbstone of a road” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Takaki and Sekiguchi by identifying the presence of a specific structure such as a curbstone as taught by Yu with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Yu ¶ 22 teaches that “Radar returns, having a longer wavelength, can often be unable to determine an exact nature of an object that reflects the radar signals, e.g., to differentiate a pedestrian from a road sign, a vehicle from a roadblock, to identify accurate boundaries of the roadway, and so on.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the importance of recognizing objects that the radar may have difficulty sensing so that the system could compensate for any potential inaccuracies in the sensor data . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 4-5 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (the non-patent journal article “Multi-Sensor Fusion in Automated Driving: A Survey” ) p. 2855 discloses multi-sensor data fusion that accounts for the different data formats and data volume sizes for different types of sensors which could include radar and camera sensors . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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. /Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/078,331 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights