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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks filed 1/15/2026 provide no particular arguments or discussion of the amended claim elements. The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn as they are not applicable to the reworded claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 92 (paragraph [0046]) It is noted this reference was inadvertently indicated in a previous office action as being among similar references which were missing from the description. The reference 92 was subsequently removed from the replacement drawings filed 3/17/2025 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for embodiments where the “specified number of measurement repetitions” to detect a target at a particular angle to the radar system is based on a number of the identified outlier measurements at the particular angle, and where measuring an angle of an actual target is by performing the specified number of measurement repetitions of a target at the particular angle, does not reasonably provide enablement for specifying a number of measurement repetitions based on “a number of the identified outlier measurements”, these being the plurality of angle measurements made “at a plurality of positions” (i.e. test target measurements from different positions) per the initial measuring step. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with independent claims 1 and 26.
The specification consistently describes that the number of measurements specified are associated with particular angles, for example at [0033] and [0041]. Figures 7A and 7B demonstrate the basis for the specified measurements, i.e. that for each of different specific target angles of the test target, the radar system provides a plurality of measurements and correspondingly identifies outliers from among the data at each angle. Figure 7A shows that repeated measurements of a target angle of -20 degrees result in few outliers, while at an angle of 20 degrees, there are many. From this, the number of subsequent measurements to be performed for targets at each angle are specified. The specified number is different in these examples. In contrast, the claimed system and method of claims 1 and 26 specifies and performs a number of measurement repetitions based on “a number of the identified outlier measurements” generically. As claimed, these outliers are among the angle measurements taken over a plurality of positions (e.g. one measurement per position), and the specified number of repetitions for an actual target (e.g. for the entire field of view) without regard for angle is determined and performed. The specification provides no examples or suggestion as to identifying outliers among measurements taken one at each of a set of test target angles and in turn, where the specified number of repetitions are chosen and ultimately performed for targets regardless of position in the field of view as encompassed by the claims. Instead, the determination of outliers described in the specification is by nature an angle by angle determination with a plurality of measurements at each, e.g. as demonstrated in Figures 7A and 7B, and in turn the subsequent specifying and performing of measurement repetitions are angle specific. The specification does not enable one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation as the claims encompass a distinct embodiment from the one disclosed. The embodiment is not described or suggested, produces a different result, and requires fundamentally different analysis to specify one number of repetitions which is based on outliers identified across the plurality of test target positions.
Claims 2, 6-7, 21-25, and 27-34 depend on one of claims 1 or 26, and likewise fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-24, 27-29, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the evaluating" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also concerning claim 35, the metes and bounds of the “usable field of view”, which is specified as “an angle range within which outlier measurements can be compensated by performing a specified number of measurement repetitions” are indefinite. As an initial matter, “the evaluating” lacks antecedent basis and therefore the basis of the specifying step is unclear at the outset. However, on a presumption that the limitation is instead intended to refer to the identifying step, it is also unclear as to whether the “outlier measurements” referenced are intended to refer to the “outlier measurements” which are identified earlier in the claim, or if these are different.
Further, what “can be compensated” (or cannot be compensated) by performing a specified number of measurement repetitions is undefined. Merely performing repetitions of a measurement does not appear itself to “compensate” for outliers; indeed as demonstrated previously in the claim, when a number of measurements are performed outliers are merely a result. It appears that additional steps are necessary to define what “can be compensated” means in this context, to the extent definition is possible. As an example, if the “specified number of measurements” is ten and based on the identifying step a given field of view angle range is expected to result in five of those being outliers, it is not defined whether those outliers “can be compensated”, as this depends on processing step(s) and/or a specific definition of what qualifies as “can be compensated” that is outside the scope of the claim.
Claim 36 depends on claim 35 and is likewise indefinite.
Claims 21-24 and 27-29 include the same “can be compensated” feature as discussed concerning claim 35 and are likewise indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
To the extent what the invention regards as “outlier measurements” which “can be compensated by performing a specified number of measurement repetitions” can be defined, claims 35-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646