DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldum [US 20180364327] in view of self-admitted art.
As to claim 1. Weldum discloses An object detection device, comprising:
a transmitting unit, [fig. 2, 0049] transmitter 110, configured to transmit a transmission wave, [0050];
a receiving unit, [fig. 2, 0049] detector 120, configured to receive a reception wave produced by reflection of the transmission wave off an object, [0050];
a CFAR processing unit, [fig. 2, 0053] processor 230, configured to acquire a difference value, [0068, 0069, claim 10] detect target signal strength value that is above the determined threshold signal strength value, between a processing target value that is a value of a processing target signal corresponding to the reception wave received at a certain detection timing, [0003, 0004] the processor identifies characteristics, [0010] including signal strength, of each cell that represents a location in space at a detection time, and a reference value based on a moving average value of values of reference signal groups corresponding to the reception wave received during predetermined periods before and after the certain detection timing, [0005, 0062] calculate a moving time average threshold of the signal strength associated with noise;
a detection processing unit configured to generate information about the object, based on the difference value, [fig. 5A, 0066, 0067] identify signal strength above the threshold value as target signals; and
a setting unit, [fig. 1, 0053] processor with module 232, configured to select the reference value suitable for a detection distance corresponding to the certain detection timing from a plurality of the reference values set in advance, [0005, 0053, 0068] sets threshold for each cell at the detection time.
Weldum fails to explicitly disclose wherein reference value that is based on a moving average value of values of reference signal groups including a first reference signal group corresponding to the reception wave received during a first predetermined period before the certain detection timing corresponding to the processing target signal, and a second reference signal group corresponding to the reception wave received during a second predetermined period after the certain detecting timing corresponding to the processing target signal.
Weldom teaches a CFAR with a cell averaging threshold used.
The current application, [0047], teaches that the cell-averaging CFAR is “processing that uses, as a reference value, the average value of all reference values including the values of a first reference signal group corresponding to the reception wave received during a first predetermined period before the detection timing, and the values of a second reference signal group corresponding to the reception wave received during a second predetermined period after the detection timing”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weldom to implement the CA-CFAR as a threshold for object detection as nothing but implementing a known method of determining a threshold with changing environmental conditions and adapt the threshold to the current environmental condition and minimize false detection of objects.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldum in view of self as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Maeno [US 20120007767].
As to claim 2. the combination of Weldum and self fails to disclose The object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the reference value such that the shorter the detection distance, the larger the reference value.
Maeno teaches a radar and detection device that sets a CFAR threshold based on a temporal moving average, [0129]; wherein the system sets a threshold value in a decreasing value as the reflecting object gets further from the radar along a radial distance, [fig. 6].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Weldum and self with that of Maeno so that the system can provide an adaptive threshold value that can take into consideration that noise signals get weaker, the further it has to travel to get to the receiver.
As to claim 3. the combination of Weldum and self fails to disclose The object detection device according to claim 2, wherein the setting unit selects a first reference value from the plurality of reference values when the detection distance is in a predetermined short distance range, selects a second reference value smaller than the first reference value from the plurality of reference values when the detection distance is in a medium distance range farther than the short distance range, and selects a third reference value smaller than the second reference value from the plurality of reference values when the detection distance is in a long distance range farther than the medium distance range.
Maeno teaches a radar and detection device that sets a CFAR threshold based on a temporal moving average, [0129]; wherein the system sets a threshold value in a decreasing value as the reflecting object gets further from the radar along a radial distance, [fig. 6].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Weldum and self with that of Maeno so that the system can provide an adaptive threshold value that can take into consideration that noise signals get weaker, the further it has to travel to get to the receiver.
As to claim 4. the combination of Weldum and self fails to disclose The object detection device according to claim 3, wherein
the first reference value is a maximum average value that is a larger value of a first average value that is an average value of values of a first reference signal group corresponding to the reception wave received during a first predetermined time before the detection timing, and a second average value that is an average value of values of a second reference signal group corresponding to the reception wave received during a second predetermined time after the certain detection timing,
the second reference value is an overall average value that is an average value of all reference values including the values of the first reference signal group and the values of the second reference signal group, and
the third reference value is a minimum average value that is a smaller value of the first average value and the second average value.
Maeno teaches a radar and detection device that sets a CFAR threshold based on a temporal moving average, [0129]; wherein the system sets a threshold value in a decreasing value as the reflecting object gets further from the radar along a radial distance, [fig. 6].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Weldum and self with that of Maeno so that the system can provide an adaptive threshold value that can take into consideration that noise signals get weaker, the further it has to travel to get to the receiver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688