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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 09 July 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
computing device in claims 16-18.
The structure of the “computing device” is “computing device 300 includes processor 302, memory 304, input / output unit 306 and network interface 308” (see Specification, para 0071, Fig. 3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12386032. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. US12386032.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, signals from a first sensor coupled to a vehicle;
determining a distance and an angle to a source of the signals, wherein the source is associated with a second vehicle in an environment of the vehicle;
performing a comparison between a power level of the signals and a power level threshold, wherein the power level threshold depends on the determined distance and angle to the source;
based on the comparison, adjusting a confidence level associated with the first sensor; and
controlling the vehicle based on the adjusted confidence level associated with the first sensor.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining a distance and an angle...”, “performing a comparison…” and “…adjusting a confidence level…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, signals from a first sensor coupled to a vehicle;
determining a distance and an angle to a source of the signals, wherein the source is associated with a second vehicle in an environment of the vehicle;
performing a comparison between a power level of the signals and a power level threshold, wherein the power level threshold depends on the determined distance and angle to the source;
based on the comparison, adjusting a confidence level associated with the first sensor; and
controlling the vehicle based on the adjusted confidence level associated with the first sensor.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…” and “controlling…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (computing device) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The controlling… step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of transmitting the result from the performing…and…decreasing…steps), and amounts to mere post solution data transmission or post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “receiving…” and “controlling...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receiving...” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the computing device is merely a conventional computer within a vehicle. The additional limitation of “controlling…” is recited broadly and amounts to merely transmitting the instruction to the vehicle controller or computing device. The “controlling…” could also be merely controlling a display device for post-solution displaying. The specification does not provide any indication that the computing device is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 16.
Claim 16, an apparatus claim (a system), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method).
Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 20.
Claim 20, an apparatus claim (a non-transitory computer-readable medium), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method).
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 16.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsch (EP3825727, hereinafter Marsch).
As to claims 1, 16 and 20, Marsch teaches a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, that when executed by a computing system comprising one or more processors, causes the computing system to perform operations, comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, signals from a first sensor coupled to a vehicle (see at least Marsch para 0037-0038: obtaining one or more radar detections by the vehicle radar system when the vehicle radar transceiver is located in the geographical area. Most vehicle radar systems obtain detections regularly, in cycles, and build a target list or list of detections; para 0034: a vehicle radar system 160 comprising a radar transceiver 120 and a control unit 121);
determining a distance and an angle to a source of the signals, wherein the source is associated with a second vehicle in an environment of the vehicle (see at least Marsch para 0046-0048: …identify the target by monitoring the return modulation from the transponder…the data comprises a geographic location associated with the expected detection…the radar system to estimate what the expected target strength, i.e., power level, should be, and at what bearing it should be detected…the obtained data may comprise information about the stationary target, the information comprising at least one of distance, expected signal strength, height and/or elevation angle, azimuth bearing angle, target identification as well as RCS; also see para 0032, 0037 and Fig. 1);
performing a comparison between a power level of the signals and a power level threshold, wherein the power level threshold depends on the determined distance and angle to the source (see at least Marsch para 0037-0038: the radar system may compare the one or more radar detections by the vehicle radar system to the expected radar detection, and detect fault in the vehicle radar system in case no radar detection by the vehicle radar system corresponds to the expected detection; para 0033: performing radar fault detection; para 0009-0011: The radar system may detect a reduction in system gain based on the RCS, by comparing a received radar reflection strength to an expected strength determined based on the RCS data; para 0046-0048: …identify the target by monitoring the return modulation from the transponder…the data comprises a geographic location associated with the expected detection…the radar system to estimate what the expected target strength, i.e., power level, should be, and at what bearing it should be detected…the obtained data may comprise information about the stationary target, the information comprising at least one of distance, expected signal strength, height and/or elevation angle, azimuth bearing angle, target identification as well as RCS; also see para 0032 and 0044, Fig. 1);
based on the comparison, adjusting a confidence level associated with the first sensor (see at least Marsch para 0037-0038: the radar system may compare the one or more radar detections by the vehicle radar system to the expected radar detection, and detect fault in the vehicle radar system in case no radar detection by the vehicle radar system corresponds to the expected detection); and
controlling the vehicle based on the adjusted confidence level associated with the first sensor (see at least Marsch para 0037-0038: trigger an alarm or issue a warning in the case of radar fault detection to notify the driver that radar capabilities appear to be reduced).
Marsch further teaches a computing device (see at least Marsch para 0054 for CPU, multiprocessors…).
As to claim 3, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a radar sensor and the signals are radio-frequency (RF) signals (see at least Marsch para 0037-0038: obtaining one or more radar detections by the vehicle radar system when the vehicle radar transceiver is located in the geographical area).
As to claim 4, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more parameters of the signals that indicate the signals originate from a vehicle radar system used by the second vehicle (see at least Marsch para 0046: it may be an active target such as a radar transponder. In such cases the data may comprise a transponder return modulation pattern or the like allowing the radar system 160 to identify the target by monitoring the return modulation from the transponder. This simplifies the comparison between the expected detection and the list of target detections maintained by the radar system, also see para 0051: V2X communication).
As to claims 5 and 18, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 16, wherein determining the distance and the angle to the source of the signals comprises:
estimating the distance and the angle to the second vehicle based on sensor data from one or more additional vehicle sensors (see at least Marsch para 0046-0048: … the data comprises a geographic location associated with the expected detection…the radar system to estimate …at what bearing it should be detected…the information comprising at least one of distance…height and/or elevation angle, azimuth bearing angle…; para 0027: the radar transceiver can be arranged on any location on the vehicle and in any orientation, such as in a rearward- or forward-facing position, on top of, under, or on the sides etc. para 0021: …one or more radar transceivers…).
As to claims 6 and 19, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 16, wherein adjusting the confidence level comprises decreasing the confidence level associated with the first sensor when the power level of the signals is below the power level threshold (see at least Marsch para 0010-0011: obtaining data comprising an expected radar detection strength. This way the radar system may detect if its detection capability has been reduced for some reasons; para 0044-0047: If the expected target is detected at a reduced strength compared to what the data says, then it can be expected that the radar system is operating at reduced gain for some reason, perhaps due to blockage or due to some mechanical damage. This may be logged onboard the vehicle for further investigation next time the vehicle is serviced).
As to claim 11, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: communicating with the source of the signals (see at least Marsch para 0053: a radar transceiver 120 and a control unit 121, wherein the control unit 121 is configured to obtain data related to an expected radar detection 130 by the vehicle radar system 160); and based on communicating with the source of the signals, increasing the confidence level associated with the first sensor (see at least Marsch para 0053: wherein the vehicle radar system 160 is arranged to detect fault in the vehicle radar system 160 in case no radar detection by the vehicle radar system 160 corresponds to the expected detection 130, also see para 0052).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsch in view of Long (US20210221389).
As to claims 2 and 17, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 16.
Marsch does not explicitly teach wherein controlling the vehicle based on the adjusted confidence level associated with the first sensor comprises: selecting a set of alternative sensors coupled to the vehicle based on the adjusted confidence level associated with the first sensor; and controlling the vehicle using sensor data from the selected set of alternative sensors.
Long is directed to determining sensing capability of a PAAV. Long teaches the sensor capability determination system assigns a confidence level to each sensor tested and the vehicle changes the weights applied to sensor contributions to deemphasize sensors with lower confidence levels and to emphasize sensors with higher confidence levels. In yet other example approaches, the vehicle includes sensors of similar or other modalities that provide an alternate mechanism for acquiring the same information. For instance, if an imaging sensor is impaired, information normally received via the imaging sensor may be retrieved via the LiDAR sensor (see at least Long para 0137)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitations in view of Long et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that using alternate sensors to capture information when a sensor is less reliable of Gulati can be used in Marsch, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Gulati because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing method to acquire reliable data that could be used by the vehicle for safe driving.
Claims 7-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsch in view of Gulati (US20220120845, hereinafter Gulati).
As to claim 7, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Marsch does not teach based on determining the distance and the angle to the source of the signals, identifying the power level threshold using an interference model.
Gulati is directed to systems and methods for predictive coordination of ego radar and interferer radar parameters. Gulati teaches power of signal form direct path such as interferer signals received at ego radar is inversely proportional to the square of the distance… the processor may generate two dimensional, three-dimensional, or four dimensional tensors for features within cells of the observation grid detected by the radar. Specifically, a 2D tensor represents the range (i.e., distance from the radar source to the detected feature) and azimuth (the horizontal distance between a feature and a reference RF ray emitted by the radar 314, such as the initial RF ray of a radar sweep) of each detected feature… (see at least Gulati, para 0023, 0028, Fig. 2; also see para 0025 for array of transmit antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitation in view of Gulati et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that method disclosed in Gulati can be used in Marsch to determine the expected strength at certain distance and angles, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Gulati because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing method to identify parameters from the interfering radar source and thereby modify the corresponding parameters to reduce or eliminate the interference (see at least Gulati, para 0035-0037).
As to claim 8, Marsch teaches the method of claim 7.
Gulati further teaches wherein the interference model represents respective power level thresholds for a plurality of spatial relationships between the vehicle and the source of the signals (see at least Gulati, para 0023, 0028, Fig. 2; also see para 0025 for array of transmit antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitation in view of Gulati et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that method disclosed in Gulati can be used in Marsch to determine the expected strength at certain distance and angles, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Gulati because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing method to identify parameters from the interfering radar source and thereby modify the corresponding parameters to reduce or eliminate the interference (see at least Gulati, para 0035-0037).
As to claim 13, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Gulati further teaches identifying one or more parameters of the signals that indicate the signals originate from an external emitter by: performing a comparison between first parameters corresponding to signals transmitted by the first sensor and second parameters corresponding to the received signals; and based on the comparison between the first parameters and the second parameters, identifying at least one parameter in the second parameters that indicates the signals originate from the external emitter (see at least Gulati, para 0022:…ego radar source tracking or detecting the target by emitting a radar signal…the signals emitted by the ego radar source to detect and/or track the target include signals emitted in the direction of the target and signals emitted in the direction of the second signal source…the signals emitted to the target may be reflected back to the ego radar source as target reflection signals and the signals emitted in the direction of the second radar source may be reflected back as second radar source reflection signals…the second radar source may also emit its own signals using its radar system; para 0032-0037: The ego radar source may emit or transmit, using its radar system, a radar signal and receive reflections, which may include reflections from the target and/or one or more of the interferers in the vicinity of the ego radar source and/or the target…The ego radar source may filter the radar images and identify or detect which features on the radar images correspond to the target and/or the interferes…The ego radar source may coordinate with the interferers to at least reduce or eliminate the interference by communicating requests to the interferers to alter one or more radar parameters of their respective radar signals…the ego radar source may have determined the changes to the radar parameters of the interferers…and may provide the determined radar parameter changes to the interferers with the request to change the radar parameters…, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitations in view of Gulati et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ego radar source altering or making changes to one or more of the radar parameters of the radar signals of the ego radar or the interferer of Gulati can be used in Marsch, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Gulati because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing method to identify parameters from the interfering radar source and thereby modify the corresponding parameters to reduce or eliminate the interference (see at least Gulati, para 0035-0037).
As to claim 14, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Gulati further teaches wherein the vehicle is a first vehicle and the source of the signals is a sensor coupled to the second vehicle, and wherein the second vehicle is configured to wirelessly communicate transmission parameters and location information to the first vehicle (see at least Gulati para 0034: the ego radar source coordinate with interferers by communicating with the interferers via V2X, 4G or 5G network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitations in view of Gulati et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Gulati because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing method to identify parameters from the interfering radar source and thereby modify the corresponding parameters to reduce or eliminate the interference (see at least Gulati, para 0035-0037).
As to claim 15, Marsch teaches the method of claim 14.
Gulati further teaches wherein determining the distance and the angle to the source of the signals comprises: determining the distance and the angle to the second vehicle based on the location information received from the second vehicle (see at least Gulati para 0034: the ego radar source coordinate with interferers by communicating with the interferers via V2X, 4G or 5G network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitations in view of Gulati et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Gulati because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing method to identify parameters from the interfering radar source and thereby modify the corresponding parameters to reduce or eliminate the interference (see at least Gulati, para 0035-0037).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsch in view of Fang (US20240149923, hereinafter Fang).
As to claim 9, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Marsch does not teach based on the comparison, triggering a cleaning process for the first sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fang teaches clean status information of the at least one sensor includes information indicating that an object is attached to a surface of each sensor in the at least one sensor and a type of the object. The controlling a sensor cleaning apparatus to clean the at least one sensor includes: cleaning each sensor in the at least one sensor based on the type of the object attached to the surface of each sensor in the at least one sensor (see at least Fang, para 0019-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include based on the comparison, triggering a cleaning process for the first sensor in view of Fang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that cleaning the sensor surface when sensor performance degraded due to an object attached to the surface of Fang can be used in Marsch, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Fang because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving detection performance of the sensors and therefore improving security performance of the intelligent devices (see at least Fang, para 0010, para 0158).
As to claim 10, Marsch teaches the method of claim 9.
Fang further teaches evaluating subsequent performance of the first sensor after the cleaning process; and adjusting the confidence level associated with the first sensor based on the evaluated subsequent performance (see at least Fang para 0119: …after the sensor cleaning apparatus cleans the sensor, the sensor detection apparatus may continue to obtain data collected by the sensor. If the result output by the sensor detection apparatus indicates that the sensor is in a clean state, the sensor detection apparatus may further control the prompt apparatus to prompt, by using a sound, the user that the sensor is clean, or may prompt, by using the HMI, the user that the sensor is clean).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitation in view of Fang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Fang because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving detection performance of the sensors and therefore improving security performance of the intelligent devices (see at least Fang, para 0010, para 0158).
As to claim 12, Marsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Fang further teaches wherein adjusting the confidence level associated with the first sensor comprises: determining fouling is present on a sensor cover of the first sensor (see at least Fang para 0004: the protection apparatus is exposed to the external environment…the surfaces of the sensor of the protection apparatus are covered by dust).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsch so as to include the above limitation in view of Fang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Marsch and Fang because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving detection performance of the sensors and therefore improving security performance of the intelligent devices (see at least Fang, para 0010, para 0158).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights