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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP, filed on May 15, 2020.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Amendment to claim 1 is entered.
Claim 3 is canceled.
New claims 4 – 8 are added.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 8 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Regarding 112(f) claim interpretation, the Examiner recommends language such as “unit including at least one processor” or calculator or circuitry in lieu of “unit” to avoid claim interpretation.
A better reference has been found.
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 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: unit in claims 1 – 3.
The term unit is a generic placeholder and is more commonly associated with a standard measurement such as an inch. The term unit by itself as an actual part conveys no information.
Neither the modifier “angle calculation” nor the functional language “repeatedly calculate the axial displacement angle based on … radar …” denote structure.
Neither the modifier “average value calculation” nor the functional language “extract the axial displacement angle included in a predetermined extraction angle range among a plurality of axial displacement angles calculated by the angle calculation unit, and calculate an average value of the extracted plurality of axial displacement angles to be an axial displacement angle average value” denote structure.
Neither the modifier “utilization determination” nor functional language “determine, based on the axial displacement angle average value …, whether a predetermined allowable condition is met” denote structure.
Neither the modifier “utilization” nor functional language “to utilize, when the utilization determination unit determines that the predetermined allowable condition is met, the axial displacement angle average value calculated by the average value calculation unit as an estimation result of the axial displacement angle” denote structure.
The specification provides for a microprocessor for structure. See Spec. Page 4. As such, the structure is a microprocessor and equivalents. The algorithm is provided for in 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.
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 – 2 and 4 – 8 are rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Goto (US 20160291132 A1) in view of Samaukawa (US 20040117090 A1).
As to claim 1, 5 and 7, Goto discloses an axial displacement estimation device that estimates an axial displacement angle of a radar apparatus mounted on a mobile body, comprising:
an angle calculation unit configured to repeatedly calculate the axial displacement angle based on a detection result of the radar apparatus (Fig. 5 is a loop thus repeats.);
an average value calculation unit configured to extract the axial displacement angle among a plurality of axial displacement angles calculated by the angle calculation unit (Fig. 5 s120 & S130), and
calculate an average value of the extracted plurality of axial displacement angles to be an axial displacement angle average value (Id.);
a utilization determination unit configured (i) compare an absolute value of the axial displacement angle average value to a predetermined error determination angle (Para 48 “magnitude of the difference between the average difference value
A
v
g
and the reference value
A
v
g
0
.”), and
(ii) for a state in which the absolute value of the axial displacement angle average value is less than or equal to the predetermined error determination angle (Fig. 5 S150 Para. 60)
to determine, based on the axial displacement angle average value calculated by the average value calculation unit, whether a predetermined allowable condition is met (Fig. 5 S150 or Fig. 5 S160 & S170 wherein standard deviation is based on an average.); and
a utilization unit configured to utilize, when the utilization determination unit determines that the predetermined allowable condition is met, the axial displacement angle average value calculated by the average value calculation unit as an estimation result of the axial displacement angle (Id.);
the axial displacement estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the allowable condition is set to satisfy a condition in which an absolute value of the axial displacement angle average value calculated by the average value calculation unit is less than or equal to a predetermined utilization determination value (Fig. 5 S150).
Goto does not teach a predetermined angular range.
In same field of endeavor, Samaukawa teaches “The scanning measurement (range) device 106 includes a transmission/reception unit (not shown) and a distance/angle calculation unit (not shown), and the transmission/reception unit emits (radiates) a plurality of laser beams in a forward direction of the one's vehicle in a predetermined angular range and detects the reflected light thereof, and the distance/angle calculation unit detects, on the basis of a time from the emission of the laser beam to the capture of the reflected light thereof, a distance from a preceding vehicle forming a reflecting object in a forward direction of the one's vehicle and an emission angle of the laser beam. Incidentally, as the scanning measurement device 106, it is also appropriate to employ a device using, instead of the laser beam, an electric wave such as microwave, an ultrasonic wave, or the like (Para. 178).”
In view of the teachings of Samukawa, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to adopt an expected predetermined range of angles in order to avoid unnecessary calculations thereby improving processing speed and efficiency.
As to claim 2, Goto in view of Samukawa discloses the axial displacement estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the axial displacement estimation device is provided with a non-utilization unit; and the non-utilization unit is configured not to utilize, when the utilization determination unit determines that the predetermined allowable condition is not met, a calculation result of the average value calculation unit, and to again execute or complete a calculation of the axial displacement angle average value by the average value calculation unit (Goto Paras. 96 and 112.).
As to claims 4, 6 and 8, Goto in view of Samaukawa teaches the axial displacement estimation device according to claim 1, 5 and 7 herein the predetermined error determination angle is larger than the predetermined utilization determination value (Goto S150 wherein the difference is checked to see if “less than”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on 571-270-5144. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648