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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
No claims were amended.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (EP 3382419 A1) in view of Barthel (US 20180065640 A1) or Nagai (US 20180319337 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ott teaches a transmitting unit that transmits a transmitting wave toward a road surface[Abstract, Claim 1, 14 has transmitted signals];
a receiving unit that receives a reflected wave of the transmitting wave reflected by an object as a receiving wave;[Abstract, Claim 1, 14 has receiving echos]
a CFAR processing unit that acquires a CFAR signal at a predetermined detection timing by CFAR processing for each of a plurality of the transmitting waves[Field of Invention, Fig 1, 5, 10 and Col7; Lines 25-30, 0053,0067 have CFAR signal processing; Abstract, Claim 1 has signals processed over time meaning it obtains a signal at a particular time], based on a value of a first processing target signal based on the receiving wave received at the detection timing and an average value of a value of a second processing target signal based on the receiving wave received in a predetermined section before and after the detection timing[Abstract, Claims 1, 14 has thresholds. 0012 has threshold based on average signal. 0053 has object detection based on signal being above threshold which reads on the claim];
and an estimating unit that .....based on the average signal level and a variation degree of a plurality of the CFAR signals[Abstract, Claims 1, 14 has thresholds. 0012 has threshold based on average signal. 0053 has object detection based on signal being above threshold which reads on the claim].
Ott does not explicitly teach estimating a road surface type[Though this appears to be an intended use and would not carry much patentable weight as it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)]
Nagai teaches estimates a road surface type [0122 -0123, Claim 10 has acoustic sensors and road condition identification]
Barthel teaches that estimates a road surface type [0020 has acoustic sensors and road condition identification].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the CFAR system in Ott view of the acoustic sensors with road condition identification in Nagai or Barthel in order to use acoustic sensors in a CFAR system to identify the condition of the road.
Regarding claim 2, Ott, as modified, teaches comprising a plurality of the transmitting units, wherein each of the plurality of transmitting units simultaneously transmits the transmitting wave toward the road surface.[Abstract, Claim 1, 14 has transmission and reception]
Barthel also teaches comprising a plurality of the transmitting units, wherein each of the plurality of transmitting units simultaneously transmits the transmitting wave toward the road surface.[0013 has 2 sensors emitting a signal]
Nagai also teaches comprising a plurality of the transmitting units, wherein each of the plurality of transmitting units simultaneously transmits the transmitting wave toward the road surface.[0096, #110 in Fig 3 has multiple sensors emitting a signal].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have multiple units transmitting the wave, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 3, Ott, as modified, teaches comprising a threshold processing unit that sets a threshold regarding the CFAR signal in accordance with the road surface type estimated by the estimating unit.[Abstract, Claims 1, 14 has thresholds. 0012 has threshold based on average signal. 0053 has object detection based on signal being above threshold which reads on the claim]
Nagai teaches that comprising a threshold processing unit that sets a threshold regarding the CFAR signal in accordance with the road surface type estimated by the estimating unit. [0062, 0100, 0122-0123, Claim 10 has thresholds and road conditions]
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the threshold based on the road surface type or the environment, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using any specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Ott, as modified, teaches wherein the object detection device is installed on a vehicle, and wherein the estimating unit transmits information on the estimated road surface type to a brake control unit of the vehicle. [0103 has system being used for vehicle obstacles].
Barthel teaches that wherein the object detection device is installed on a vehicle, and wherein the estimating unit transmits information on the estimated road surface type to a brake control unit of the vehicle. [0038, 0044 has system connected to braking system]
Additionally, it has been can be considered that a recitation such as using environmental data for vehicle automation to avoid hazards is an intended use with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, Ott, as modified, teaches wherein the threshold processing unit sets the threshold to be larger as the variation degree corresponding to the road surface type becomes larger. [0004 has changing threshold based on environmental change]
Regarding claim 6, Ott, as modified, teaches wherein the estimating unit applies the average value and the variation degree of each of the second processing target signals to a map in which a region is defined in advance by a measured value of the average signal level and the variation degree for each road surface type[Figs 4, 6, 7 and 11 have average and changing thresholds and various areas/regions; Abstract, Summary and Claim 1 have signals over time meaning ], ....
Ott does not explicitly teach estimates a corresponding road surface type[Though this appears to be an intended use and would not carry much patentable weight as it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987]
Nagai teaches and estimates a corresponding road surface type[0 122-0123, Claim 10 has acoustic sensors and road condition identification]
Barthel teaches that and estimates a corresponding road surface type [0020 has acoustic sensors and road condition identification]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the CFAR system in Ott view of the acoustic sensors with road condition identification in Nagai or Barthel in order to use acoustic sensors in a CFAR system to identify the condition of the road.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is pointed out that in the applicant arguments in the remarks on 11/17/2025, Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 4-5 of the remarks. As applicant concedes on page 4 of the remarks that Ott has “an average signal acquisition process” it would read on the claim limitation of “average signal level” as despite applicant’s arguments the claims do not claim anything further and applicant’s arguments do not distinguish how the prior art is different from the claim.
Regarding applicants arguments on Nagai and Barthel on pages 7-9, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determine threshold for false detection, ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover it is the combination of Ott in view of Nagai or Barthel that renders the claim obvious and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained — and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645