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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 2 June 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7-11, and 13-14 were amended; claim 12 was cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-14 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn due to amendment.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to the claims are withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Murakami does not show or suggest any “frequency labeling means” (pgs. 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks): Applicant’s specification recites “at least one of the frequency filters can have an individually defined electrical gain as a frequency-labeling means” (pgs. 4-6 of Applicant’s specification). Murakami teaches individual amplification of each band (18 in Fig. 1, [0025]), similar in structure to Applicant’s frequency-labeling means. Individual amplification of each band is a form of “labeling” the signal and therefore Murakami’s disclosure anticipates claims 1 and 14 and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Additionally, an “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (See MPEP 2114. II.). Even if Murakami’s only taught the structural limitations of the claim, “the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (MPEP 2114.II.), and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Applicant does not claim structure to use the labeled signal and would recommend claiming additional structure to differentiate from the prior art.
Examiner additionally notes that while not specifically argued, the amendments the claims (i.e., “frequency filter arrangement”, “operational amplifier”, “delay means comprising an electrical capacitance”, and other amendments) alter the scope of the claims.
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” of claims 1 and 14
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:
Delay means in claims 11 and 13 which recite “comprising an electrical capacitance”.
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 § 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)(1) 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:
a frequency filter arrangement 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
the frequency filter arrangement comprising 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 of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters 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 of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters 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 a 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 the at least one frequency analyzer comprises a plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters with at least partially different frequency passbands and at least one frequency filter (FF_i) of the plurality of functionally parallel frequency filters 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US 20130009555 A1 in view of Aswell US 6025589 A.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim l,
Murakami does not explicitly teach wherein the received-signal processing apparatus has an operational amplifier for normalizing received signals.
Aswell teaches a normalizing circuit with an operational amplifier (50 and 51 in Fig. 5, Col. 7 ln. 61 – Col. 8 ln. 61).
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 Aswell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure output signals are comparable to current and previous data.
Regarding claim 8, Murakami teaches the received-signal processing apparatus as claimed in claim 7,
Murakami does not explicitly teach wherein the received-signal processing apparatus comprises has at least one amplification stage.
Aswell teaches a normalizing circuit with an operational amplifier and capacitor (50 and 51 in Fig. 5, Col. 7 ln. 61 – Col. 8 ln. 61).
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 similar to Aswell 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US 20130009555 A1 in view of Aswell US 6025589 A and 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 comprising an electrical capacitance, which is directly or indirectly connected to a plurality of outputs of the frequency filters and/or which is directly or indirectly connected to a negative input of an operational amplifier 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 or indirectly connected to the frequency filters; examiner notes that conductors inherently have electrical capacitance).
Additionally, Aswell teaches a normalizing circuit with an operational amplifier and capacitor (50 and 51 in Fig. 5, Col. 7 ln. 61 – Col. 8 ln. 61; Examiner notes that all components of a same circuit would be at least indirectly connected).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the operational amplifier comprises a negative input connected to a plurality of outputs of the frequency filters and a positive input connected to a plurality of inputs of the frequency filters.
The apparatus of claim 13, specifically including: at least one delay means…is functionally arranged between a negative input and at least one output of an operational amplifier of the received-signal processing apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights