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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 ln. 11: “at least one frequency filter” appears” instead of “at least one frequency filter of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters”.
Claim 8 ln. 2: “at least one normalization means” appears instead of “the at least one normalization means”.
Claim 9 ln. 2: “at least one normalization means” appears instead of “the at least one normalization means”
Claim 10 ln. 3: “a normalization means” appears instead of “the at least one normalization means”
Claim 13 ln. 4: “the at least one normalization means” appears instead of “at least one normalization means”.
Claim 14 ln. 14: “at least one frequency filter” appears” instead of “at least one frequency filter of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
“frequency analysis means” in claim 1
“normalization means” in claim 7-8, 11, and 13
Delay means in claims 11-13
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
At least one frequency analysis means as interpreted as comprising the frequency filters of claim 1 (see 112(b) rejection below).
Normalization means of claims 9-10 recites structure of an operational amplifier
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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.
In claim 1, claim limitation “frequency analysis means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear if the frequency analysis means includes the frequency filters or is separate from the frequency filters which are not clearly claimed as part of the frequency analysis means, and no other structure is detailed in the specification for the frequency analysis means. Therefore, claim 1, and claims 2-13 by dependence, are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret the frequency analysis means comprises the frequency filter(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites “a frequency filter is a bandpass filter”. However, it is not clear if “a frequency filter” is one of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters, at least on frequency filter, or a separate frequency filter. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as “a frequency filter of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters”.
Claim 9 recites “one of the inputs (-) and another one of the inputs (+)”. However, it is not clear if the “(-)” and “(+)” are requiring that the claimed one of the inputs is the negative input and the another one of the inputs is the positive input or if these are examples. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as requiring the inputs to respectively be the negative and positive inputs. Claim 10, by dependence on claim 9, is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites “an input (+)”. However, it is not clear if the “(+)”requires that the claimed input is the positive input or if this is an example. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as requiring the input to be the positive input.
Claim 13 recites “at least one input (-)”. However, it is not clear if the “(-)”requires that the claimed at least one input is the negative input or if this is an example. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as requiring the input to be the negative input.
Claim 14 recites “at least one frequency analyzer”. It is not clear if the frequency analysis means includes the frequency filters or is separate from the frequency filters which are not clearly claimed as part of the frequency analysis means, and no other structure is detailed in the specification for the frequency analysis means. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret the frequency analysis means comprises the frequency filter(s).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murakami US 20130009555 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches a received-signal processing apparatus of a detection device for monitoring at least one monitoring region for objects by electromagnetic scanning signals, the received-signal processing apparatus comprising:
at least one frequency analysis means for the frequency analysis of electromagnetic received signals, which are determined from echo signals of electromagnetic scanning signals reflected in at least one monitoring region (14 and 18 in Fig. 1, [00023-25]); and
a plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters with at least partially different frequency passbands (18 in Fig. 1, [0025]),
wherein at least one frequency filter has at least one frequency labeling means, by which a passed received signal that is passed through said at least one frequency filter is labeled with a frequency feature that characterizes the frequency passband of the at least one frequency filter that passes it (individual amplification of each band, 18 in Fig. 1, [0025]).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in 1, wherein a frequency filter is a bandpass filter (amplifiers 18 function as bandpass filters, Fig. 1, [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frequency passbands of at least two frequency filters adjacent in frequency at least partially overlap and/or the frequency passbands of at least two frequency filters adjacent in frequency do not overlap (at least two frequency bands will inherently either at least partially overlap or not overlap; in Fig. 1, the bands do not overlap or minimally overlap, [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim, wherein the frequency passbands of the frequency filters in total cover the maximum frequency amplitude of the electrical received signals (Figs. 1, and 4-5 show an entire frequency range covered, [0022-23]).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least two frequency filters have frequency passbands with the same frequency range and/or at least two frequency filters have frequency passbands with different frequency ranges (at least two frequency bands will inherently either at least be the same or different, 18 in Fig. 1 shows different bands, [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the frequency filters has an individually defined electrical gain as a frequency labeling means (individual amplification of each band, Fig. 1, [0025, 33, 36]) .
Regarding claim 14, Murakami teaches a detection device for monitoring at least one monitoring region for objects by electromagnetic scanning signals, the detection device comprising:
at least one transmitting device, by which electromagnetic scanning signals generated from electrical transmitted signals, wherein said scanning signals can be are transmitted into at least one monitoring region (active sensor 10 in Fig. 2, [0021-22]);
at least one receiving device by which electrical received signals are determined from echo signals of at least one scanning signal reflected in at least one monitoring region (sensor 10, [0021-22]); and
at least one control and evaluation device, which comprises at least one frequency analyzer for the frequency analysis of the electrical received signals (14 and 18 in Fig. 1, [00023-25]),
wherein at least one received-signal processing apparatus has a plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters with at least partially different frequency passbands and at least one frequency filter has at least one frequency labeling means, by which the passed received signal that is passed through said at least one frequency filter is labeled with a frequency feature that characterizes the frequency passband of the at least one frequency filter that passes it (individual amplification of each band by filters 18 in Fig. 1, [0025]).
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.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US 20130009555 A1 in view of Masuda US 20160377714 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim l,
Murakami does not explicitly teach but Masuda teaches wherein the received-signal processing apparatus has at least one normalization means for normalizing received signals (normalizer 6, [0061]).
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 Murakami such that the received-signal processing apparatus has at least one normalization means for normalizing received signals similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure output signals are comparable to current and previous data.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US 20130009555 A1 in view of Masuda US 20160377714 A1 and further in view of Borghi US 20020097058 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim 7,
Murakami does not explicitly teach but Borghi teaches wherein at least one normalization means has at least one amplification stage (normalizing outputs of a filter by use of an amplifier, [0024])
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 Murakami such that at least one normalization means has at least one amplification stage (normalizing outputs of a filter by use of an amplifier similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure output signals are comparable to current and previous data.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US 20130009555 A1 in view of Miquel US 20030022626 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim l,
Murakami does not explicitly teach wherein the received-signal processing apparatus has at least one delay means, which is directly or indirectly connected to the outputs of the frequency filters and/or which is directly or indirectly connected to at least one input (-) of at least one normalization means of the received-signal processing apparatus.
Miquel teaches a delay associated with frequency filters ([0092]; which if caused by the frequency filters would be a delay means directly indirectly connected to the frequency filters).
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 Murakami such that the received-signal processing apparatus has at least one delay means, which is directly or indirectly connected to the outputs of the frequency filters and/or which is directly or indirectly connected to at least one input (-) of at least one normalization means of the received-signal processing apparatus similar to Miquel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping improve ensure different frequencies can be processed at different times.
Regarding claim 12, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim l,
Murakami does not explicitly teach wherein at least one delay means of the at least one received-signal processing apparatus has at least one electrical capacitance.
Miquel teaches a delay associated with frequency filters ([0092]; which if caused by the frequency filters would be a delay means directly indirectly connected to the frequency filters).
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 Murakami such that at least one delay means of the at least one received-signal processing apparatus has at least one electrical capacitance similar to Miquel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping improve ensure different frequencies can be processed at different times.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious:
The apparatus of claim 9, specifically including: at least one normalization means of the received-signal processing apparatus has at least on operational amplifier, of which one of the inputs (0) is connected to the outputs of the frequency filters and another of the inputs is connected to the inputs of the frequency filters.
The apparatus of claim 13, specifically including: at least one delay means…is functionally arranged between at least one input (-) and at least one output of the at least one normalization means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645