Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 19/278,140 and claims filed on 7/23/2025.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/2025 has been fully
considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, there is an incorrectly placed indent in the last two lines of claim 1 in the middle of the limitation “and the first average [[indent]] power per unit angle is greater than the second average power per unit angle,” rather than before the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,249 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued patent.
7. 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 4 of the issued patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations are provided in bold):
An apparatus for providing driver assistance of a vehicle, the vehicle having a cabin for receiving users of the vehicle, the apparatus comprising a first sensor and a second sensor mounted on a vehicle, wherein:
the first sensor is configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation to detect the presence of an object in a first area;
the second sensor is configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation to detect the presence of an object in a second area;
the first sensor and the second sensor are mounted on the vehicle forward of the cabin;
the first area and the second area overlap to define an overlapping area forward of the vehicle;
the first area extends from the overlapping area to a first extreme direction having a rearward component and a leftward component;
the second area extends from the overlapping area to a second extreme direction having a rearward component and a rightward component; and
the first sensor is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a first average power per unit angle in the overlapping area and to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a second average power per unit angle outside of the overlapping area; and the first average
power per unit angle is greater than the second average power per unit angle.
The Examiner would like to note, that claim 4 of the issued patent, which is a dependent claim of independent claim 1 of the issued patent, also comprises all of the limitations of claim 1 of the issued patent for its dependency.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-10, 13-16, and 18-20, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 11 of the issued patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed).
Regarding Claim 1, Poiger teaches an apparatus for providing driver assistance of a vehicle, the vehicle having a cabin for receiving users of the vehicle ([0035] via “FIG. 1
schematically shows a top view of a vehicle 1 arranged ….”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well, wherein the cabin is interpreted to be in the middle section of the vehicle 1.), the apparatus comprising a first sensor and a second sensor mounted on a vehicle ([0035] via “… where the vehicle 1 includes a vehicle radar system 3. The vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the first and second radar sensor arrangements 4a and 4b of Poiger as the first and second sensors.), wherein:
the first sensor is configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation to detect the presence of an object in a first area ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b … such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well. The Examiner interprets the antenna radiation pattern 47a as the first area.);
the second sensor is configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation to detect the presence of an object in a second area ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b … such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern
47a, 47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well. The Examiner interprets the antenna radiation pattern 47b as the second area.);
the first sensor and the second sensor are mounted on the vehicle forward of the cabin ([0035] via “… where the vehicle 1 includes a vehicle radar system 3. The vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well, where sensor arrangements 4a and 4b are arranged at the front of the vehicle 1.);
the first area and the second area overlap to define an overlapping area forward of the vehicle ([0054] via “The combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b where each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well. The Examiner interprets the overlapping part 56 of Poiger as the overlapping area.);
the first area extends from the overlapping area to a first extreme direction having a rearward component and a leftward component ([0049] via “… a corresponding antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b (only one antenna radiation pattern indicated for each radar sensor arrangement 4, 5 in FIG. 1) … where there is a first maximum gain 49a, 49b, and a second maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.2a, φ.sub.2b where there is a second maximum gain 50a, 50b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well, wherein radiation pattern 47a is both leftward and rearward relative to the overlapping area.); and
the second area extends from the overlapping area to a second extreme direction having a rearward component and a rightward component ([0049] via “… a corresponding antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b (only one antenna radiation pattern indicated for each radar sensor arrangement 4, 5 in FIG. 1) … where there is a first maximum gain 49a, 49b, and a second maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.2a, φ.sub.2b where there is a second maximum gain 50a, 50b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well, wherein radiation pattern 47b is both rightward and rearward relative to the overlapping area.).
Poiger is silent on wherein the first sensor is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a first average power per unit angle in the overlapping area and to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a second average power per unit angle outside of the overlapping area; and the first average power per unit angle is greater than the second average power per unit angle.
However, Weed teaches wherein the first sensor is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation ([0041] via “FIG. 1 illustrates an example light detection and ranging (lidar) system 100.”) with a first average power per unit angle in the overlapping area and to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a second average power per unit angle outside of the overlapping area ([0030] via “In this manner, the lidar system may increase the power and range farther directly in front of the vehicle or the lidar system and then decrease the power and corresponding range as the lidar system scans toward the sides.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the front of the vehicle of Weed as corresponding to the overlapping area of Poiger, which is directly in front of the vehicle of Poiger. The Examiner also interprets the increased power of Weed as the first average power per unit angle and the decreased power of Weed as the second average power per unit angle.); and
the first average power per unit angle is greater than the second average power per unit angle ([0030] via “In this manner, the lidar system may increase the power and range farther directly in front of the vehicle or the lidar system and then decrease the power and corresponding range as the lidar system scans toward the sides.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Weed wherein the first sensor is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a first average power per unit angle in the overlapping area and to transmit electromagnetic radiation with a second average power per unit angle outside of the overlapping area; and the first average power per unit angle is greater than the second average power per unit angle. Doing so provides a farther detection range directly in front of the vehicle than around the periphery of the vehicle, as stated by Weed ([0030] via “In this manner, the lidar system may increase the power and range farther directly in front of the vehicle or the lidar system and then decrease the power and corresponding range as the lidar system scans toward the sides. For example, directly in front of the lidar system, the lidar system may range 200 m whereas at an orientation near the periphery (e.g., ±60 degrees from the front of the lidar system), the lidar system may range 50 m.”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Poiger teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the presence of an object within the overlapping area independently of the second sensor, or the second sensor is configured to detect the presence of an object within the overlapping area independently of the first sensor ([0054] via “The combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b where each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. Overlap processing means that both antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b are overlaid to improve the quality of the combined radar image.”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Poiger teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor is configured to: detect objects in the overlapping area up to a first distance ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b such that each first maximum gain 49a,
49b is directed in the forward direction D along a corresponding first maximum gain extension 51a, 51b, such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern 47a,
47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger, wherein there is a maximum distance in the overlapping area 56 relative to the vehicle 1, interpreted to be the first distance.);
detect objects in directions outside of the overlapping area only up to a second distance ([0049] via “… a corresponding antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b (only one antenna radiation pattern indicated for each radar sensor arrangement 4, 5 in FIG. 1) that has a lower gain 48a, 48b in its boresight extension 46a, 46b than at a certain corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b with respect to the corresponding boresight extension 46a, 46b, where there is a first maximum gain 49a, 49b, and a second maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.2a, φ.sub.2b where there is a second maximum gain 50a, 50b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger, wherein there is a maximum distance outside of the overlapping area 56 relative to the vehicle 1, interpreted to be the second distance.); and
the first distance is greater than the second distance ([0096] via “According to an example embodiment, each antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b has a lower gain 48a, 48b in its boresight extension 46a, 46b than at a second maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.2a, φ.sub.2b where there is a second maximum gain 50a, 50b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well, wherein at least the gains 48a and 48b are a smaller distance than that of the overlapping area 56 around gains 49a and 49b.).
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Poiger teaches a vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 1 ([0035] via “FIG. 1 schematically shows a top view of a vehicle 1 arranged ….”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Poiger teaches a vehicle according to claim 15, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the presence of an object within the overlapping area independently of the second sensor, and the second sensor is configured to detect the presence of an object within the overlapping area independently of the first sensor ([0054] via “The combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b where each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. Overlap processing means that both antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b are overlaid to improve the quality of the combined radar image.”).
11. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed), and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 20180341019 A1 hereinafter Sakai).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Poiger teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the first sensor is configured to: scan across the overlapping area at a first rate of change of angle; scan outside of the overlapping area at a second rate of change of angle; and the first rate of change of angle is less than the second rate of change of angle.
However, Sakai teaches to scan across the overlapping area at a first rate of change of angle ([0026] via “In some arrangements, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to rotate at variable speeds. For example, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to change its rotational speed depending on one or more different variables including, but not limited to, number of objects in the environment, distance to the objects in the environment, availability of other sensors, etc.”); scan outside of the overlapping area at a second rate of change of angle ([0026] via “In some arrangements, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to rotate at variable speeds. For example, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to change its rotational speed depending on one or more different variables including, but not limited to, number of objects in the environment, distance to the objects in the environment, availability of other sensors, etc.”); and the first rate of change of angle is less than the second rate of change of angle ([0058] via “Similar to the example described with reference to FIG. 2, the vehicle 100 can generate a point cloud representative of the environment as the LIDAR sensor 120 is rotated about the axis of rotation. An example of the point cloud corresponding to the environment 400 is shown in FIG. 5.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the rate of change of angle to be a rotational sweeping speed of the electromagnetic radiation sensors. See Figure 5 of Sakai as well. Notably, wherein the rate of rotation for objects located towards the front of the vehicle versus the sides and rear of the vehicle is different, resulting in lidar points being more or less spaced apart from each other.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sakai wherein the first sensor is configured to: scan across the overlapping area at a first rate of change of angle; scan outside of the overlapping area at a second rate of change of angle; and the first rate of change of angle is less than the second rate of change of angle. Doing so optimizes the frequency at which sensor data points of an object are captured based on the distances of the objects from the vehicle, as stated above by Sakai in paragraph [0026] and shown in Figure 5 of Sakai.
12. Claim(s) 5, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed), and further in view of Ohta (US 20180178722 A1 hereinafter Ohta).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Poiger teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the overlapping area is arranged to include a longitudinal axis of the vehicle ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b such that each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D along a corresponding first maximum gain extension 51a, 51b, such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger wherein the overlapping part 56 is along the longitudinal gain extension axes 51a and 51b.).
Poiger is silent on wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
However, Ohta teaches wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle ([0047] via “The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R is θ2 deg (90 deg <θ2<180 deg) in the right direction … from the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ohta wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Doing so allows objects located on the sides of the vehicle to be detected by the same front sensors, as stated by Ohta ([0047] via “Accordingly, the front side radar sensor 12R mainly detects an object on the right side of the host vehicle. The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12L is, though not illustrated, a region that is bilaterally symmetric with the detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R about the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Poiger teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the overlapping area subtends an angle of at least 10 degrees at the first sensor.
However, Ohta teaches wherein the overlapping area subtends an angle of at least 10 degrees at the first sensor ([0047] via “The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R is … −θ3 deg (0 deg<θ3<90 deg) in the left direction from the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ohta wherein the overlapping area subtends an angle of at least 10 degrees at the first sensor. Doing so provides a sensor area that comprises both the front and sides of the vehicle, as depicted in Figure 3 of Ohta.
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Poiger teaches a vehicle according to claim 15, wherein the overlapping area is arranged to include a longitudinal axis of the vehicle ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b such that each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D along a corresponding first maximum gain extension 51a, 51b, such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger wherein the overlapping part 56 is along the longitudinal gain extension axes 51a and 51b.).
Poiger is silent on wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
However, Ohta teaches wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle ([0047] via “The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R is θ2 deg (90 deg <θ2<180 deg) in the right direction … from the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ohta wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Doing so allows objects located on the sides of the vehicle to be detected by the same front sensors, as stated by Ohta ([0047] via “Accordingly, the front side radar sensor 12R mainly detects an object on the right side of the host vehicle. The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12L is, though not illustrated, a region that is bilaterally symmetric with the detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R about the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
13. Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed), and further in view of Stettner et al. (US 20140350836 A1 hereinafter Stettner).
Regarding Claim 7, Poiger teaches an autonomous system for a vehicle ([0035] via “FIG. 1 schematically shows a top view of a vehicle 1 arranged to run on a road 2 in a forward direction D, where the vehicle 1 includes a vehicle radar system 3.”), the autonomous system comprising the apparatus of claim 1 (Note: See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.) and a controller ([0044] via “The vehicle radar system 3 suitably includes a main control unit 38 ….”).
Poiger is silent on the controller configured to provide output signals for controlling speed of the vehicle in dependence on detection of an object in the overlapping area by the first sensor or the second sensor.
However, Stettner teaches a controller configured to provide output signals for controlling speed of the vehicle in dependence on detection of an object ([0034] via “An array of sensor data, including long range and short range ladar sensors … is analyzed by the central processor, and commands are sent to the vehicle 2 control systems, in this case, steering to make an emergency lane change, and braking to reduce the closing speed.”) in the overlapping area by the first sensor or the second sensor ([0033] via “The forward radiation pattern 6 of a long range ladar sensor embedded in a first headlight assembly of first vehicle 2 is shown by dashed lines where it sweeps the roadway ahead of the passenger side of the first vehicle 2, and the right edge of the roadway 8. The forward radiation pattern 10 of a long range ladar sensor embedded in a second headlight assembly of first vehicle 2 is shown by dashed lines where it sweeps the roadway ahead of the passenger side of the first vehicle 2, and at least part of the adjacent lane of traffic 14.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Stettner wherein forward radiation patterns 6 and 10 overlap.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stettner wherein the controller is configured to provide output signals for controlling speed of the vehicle in dependence on detection of an object in the overlapping area by the first sensor or the second sensor. Doing so allows the vehicle to make an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision with an object in the environment, as stated by Stettner ([0034] via “FIG. 2 shows a second collision threat scenario. … The first vehicle 2 has collected scene and object data concerning second vehicle 4, and the onboard central processing unit has analyzed the combined data and determined an impact is possible. An array of sensor data, including long range and short range ladar sensors … is analyzed by the central processor, and commands are sent to the vehicle 2 control systems, in this case, steering to make an emergency lane change, and braking to reduce the closing speed.”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 7, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the presence of an object within the overlapping area independently of the second sensor, or the second sensor is configured to detect the presence of an object within the overlapping area independently of the first sensor ([0054] via “The combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b where each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. Overlap processing means that both antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b are overlaid to improve the quality of the combined radar image.”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 7, wherein the first sensor is configured to: detect objects in the overlapping area up to a first distance ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b such that each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D along a corresponding first maximum gain extension 51a, 51b, such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger, wherein there is a maximum distance in the overlapping area 56 relative to the vehicle 1, interpreted to be the first distance.);
detect objects in directions outside of the overlapping area only up to a second distance ([0049] via “… a corresponding antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b (only one antenna radiation pattern indicated for each radar sensor arrangement 4, 5 in FIG. 1) that has a lower gain 48a, 48b in its boresight extension 46a, 46b than at a certain corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b with respect to the corresponding boresight extension 46a, 46b, where there is a first maximum gain 49a, 49b, and a second maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.2a, φ.sub.2b where there is a second maximum gain 50a, 50b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger, wherein there is a maximum distance outside of the overlapping area 56 relative to the vehicle 1, interpreted to be the second distance.); and
the first distance is greater than the second distance ([0096] via “According to an example embodiment, each antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b has a lower gain 48a, 48b in its boresight extension 46a, 46b than at a second maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.2a, φ.sub.2b where there is a second maximum gain 50a, 50b.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger as well, wherein at least the gains 48a and 48b are a smaller distance than that of the overlapping area 56 around gains 49a and 49b.).
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Poiger teaches a vehicle comprising the autonomous system of claim 7 ([0035] via “FIG. 1 schematically shows a top view of a vehicle 1 arranged ….”).
14. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed), further in view of Stettner et al. (US 20140350836 A1 hereinafter Stettner), and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 20180341019 A1 hereinafter Sakai).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 7, but is silent on wherein the first sensor is configured to: scan across the overlapping area at a first rate of change of angle; scan outside of the overlapping area at a second rate of change of angle; and the first rate of change of angle is less than the second rate of change of angle.
However, Sakai teaches to scan across the overlapping area at a first rate of change of angle ([0026] via “In some arrangements, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to rotate at variable speeds. For example, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to change its rotational speed depending on one or more different variables including, but not limited to, number of objects in the environment, distance to the objects in the environment, availability of other sensors, etc.”); scan outside of the overlapping area at a second rate of change of angle ([0026] via “In some arrangements, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to rotate at variable speeds. For example, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 can be configured to change its rotational speed depending on one or more different variables including, but not limited to, number of objects in the environment, distance to the objects in the environment, availability of other sensors, etc.”); and the first rate of change of angle is less than the second rate of change of angle ([0058] via “Similar to the example described with reference to FIG. 2, the vehicle 100 can generate a point cloud representative of the environment as the LIDAR sensor 120 is rotated about the axis of rotation. An example of the point cloud corresponding to the environment 400 is shown in FIG. 5.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the rate of change of angle to be a rotational sweeping speed of the electromagnetic radiation sensors. See Figure 5 of Sakai as well. Notably, wherein the rate of rotation for objects located towards the front of the vehicle versus the sides and rear of the vehicle is different, resulting in lidar points being more or less spaced apart from each other.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sakai wherein the first sensor is configured to: scan across the overlapping area at a first rate of change of angle; scan outside of the overlapping area at a second rate of change of angle; and the first rate of change of angle is less than the second rate of change of angle. Doing so optimizes the frequency at which sensor data points of an object are captured based on the distances of the objects from the vehicle, as stated above by Sakai in paragraph [0026] and shown in Figure 5 of Sakai.
15. Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed), further in view of Stettner et al. (US 20140350836 A1 hereinafter Stettner), and further in view of Ohta (US 20180178722 A1 hereinafter Ohta).
Regarding Claim 11, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 7, wherein the overlapping area is arranged to include a longitudinal axis of the vehicle ([0050] via “Each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b is mounted at the corresponding first maximum gain azimuth angle φ.sub.1a, φ.sub.1b such that each first maximum gain 49a, 49b is directed in the forward direction D along a corresponding first maximum gain extension 51a, 51b, such that an overlapping part 56 of the antenna radiation pattern 47a, 47b is formed in front of the vehicle, in the forward direction D.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Poiger wherein the overlapping part 56 is along the longitudinal gain extension axes 51a and 51b.).
Poiger is silent on wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
However, Ohta teaches wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle ([0047] via “The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R is θ2 deg (90 deg <θ2<180 deg) in the right direction … from the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ohta wherein the first extreme direction is at an angle of at least 130 degrees to a forward direction along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Doing so allows objects located on the sides of the vehicle to be detected by the same front sensors, as stated by Ohta ([0047] via “Accordingly, the front side radar sensor 12R mainly detects an object on the right side of the host vehicle. The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12L is, though not illustrated, a region that is bilaterally symmetric with the detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R about the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 7, but is silent on wherein the overlapping area subtends an angle of at least 10 degrees at the first sensor.
However, Ohta teaches wherein the overlapping area subtends an angle of at least 10 degrees at the first sensor ([0047] via “The detection region of the front side radar sensor 12R is … −θ3 deg (0 deg<θ3<90 deg) in the left direction from the vehicle front-rear axis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ohta wherein the overlapping area subtends an angle of at least 10 degrees at the first sensor. Doing so provides a sensor area that comprises both the front and sides of the vehicle, as depicted in Figure 3 of Ohta.
16. Claim(s) 13, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poiger et al. (US 20190204435 A1 hereinafter Poiger) in view of Weed et al. (US 20180284224 A1 hereinafter Weed), further in view of Stettner et al. (US 20140350836 A1 hereinafter Stettner), and further in view of Huber (US 20170369073 A1 hereinafter Huber).
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 7, but is silent on wherein the autonomous system comprises an adaptive cruise control system.
However, Huber teaches wherein the autonomous system comprises an adaptive cruise control system ([0035] via “A front portion of the vehicle 100 may be equipped with … and adaptive cruise control 314.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huber wherein the autonomous system comprises an adaptive cruise control system. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Adaptive cruise control systems within vehicles are a common and well-known driver assistance system in vehicle control. While the invention of Poiger makes mention of such a system in paragraph [0003] of the background, despite the lack of mention in the invention of Poiger that an adaptive cruise control system is incorporated within, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same predicted outcomes. Adaptive cruise control systems are a well-known and common type of driver assistance system in the art of vehicle control, and therefore the simple substitution of an adaptive cruise control system would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Poiger teaches an autonomous system according to claim 13, but is silent on wherein: the controller is configured to: provide a cross traffic alert signal in dependence on detection of an object by the first sensor in the first area but outside of the overlapping area or by the second sensor in the second area but outside of the overlapping area.
However, Huber teaches wherein: the controller is configured to: provide a cross traffic alert signal ([0035] via “The cross traffic alert 308 and rear-collision warning 318 may be incorporated as independent modules or configured as part of the blind-spot detection (304A, 304B).”) in dependence on detection of an object by the first sensor in the first area but outside of the overlapping area or by the second sensor in the second area but outside of the overlapping area ([0035] via “Cross traffic alert 308 and rear-collision warning 318 utilize sensors for vehicle detection while in drive (308) or may activate when the vehicle is in reverse (318). During operation, they detect vehicles that might be crossing into a forward or rearward path, and, when an oncoming vehicle is detected, the system generates an alert.”), (Note: See Figure 3 of Huber as well, wherein the sensor area for the cross traffic alert signal extends outside of the region directly in front of the vehicle, which the region directly in front of the vehicle corresponds to the overlapping area of Poiger.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huber wherein: the controller is configured to: provide a cross traffic alert signal in dependence on detection of an object by the first sensor in the first area but outside of the overlapping area or by the second sensor in the second area but outside of the overlapping area. Doing so incorporates a known driver assistance system that is able to detect objects in the surroundings of the vehicle and provide warnings when an object is detected, as stated above by Huber in paragraph [0035].
Regarding Claim 19, modified reference Poiger teaches a vehicle according to claim 7, but is silent on wherein the autonomous system comprises an adaptive cruise control system.
However, Huber teaches wherein the autonomous system comprises an adaptive cruise control system ([0035] via “A front portion of the vehicle 100 may be equipped with … and adaptive cruise control 314.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huber wherein the autonomous system comprises an adaptive cruise control system. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Adaptive cruise control systems within vehicles are a common and well-known driver assistance system in vehicle control. While the invention of Poiger makes mention of such a system in paragraph [0003] of the background, despite the lack of mention in the invention of Poiger that an adaptive cruise control system is incorporated within, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same predicted outcomes. Adaptive cruise control systems are a well-known and common type of driver assistance system in the art of vehicle control, and therefore the simple substitution of an adaptive cruise control system would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 20, modified reference Poiger teaches a vehicle according to claim 19, but is silent on wherein: the controller is configured to: provide a cross traffic alert signal in dependence on detection of an object by the first sensor in the first area but outside of the overlapping area or by the second sensor in the second area but outside of the overlapping area.
However, Huber teaches wherein: the controller is configured to: provide a cross traffic alert signal ([0035] via “The cross traffic alert 308 and rear-collision warning 318 may be incorporated as independent modules or configured as part of the blind-spot detection (304A, 304B).”) in dependence on detection of an object by the first sensor in the first area but outside of the overlapping area or by the second sensor in the second area but outside of the overlapping area ([0035] via “Cross traffic alert 308 and rear-collision warning 318 utilize sensors for vehicle detection while in drive (308) or may activate when the vehicle is in reverse (318). During operation, they detect vehicles that might be crossing into a forward or rearward path, and, when an oncoming vehicle is detected, the system generates an alert.”), (Note: See Figure 3 of Huber as well, wherein the sensor area for the cross traffic alert signal extends outside of the region directly in front of the vehicle, which the region directly in front of the vehicle corresponds to the overlapping area of Poiger.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huber wherein: the controller is configured to: provide a cross traffic alert signal in dependence on detection of an object by the first sensor in the first area but outside of the overlapping area or by the second sensor in the second area but outside of the overlapping area. Doing so incorporates a known driver assistance system that is able to detect objects in the surroundings of the vehicle and provide warnings when an object is detected, as stated above by Huber in paragraph [0035].
Examiner’s Note
17. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns 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 of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their 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. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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 b
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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights