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 2021-134268, filed on August 19, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 – 11 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.
The term “in-common” is not a term of art as it relates to radar for positioning and determining velocity. See claim 1. Also, the language “a process of detecting different reflection points on the object to be performed, the detections of the different reflection points on the object being performed by use of respective radar apparatuses of the plurality of radar apparatuses” is unclear as to whether the different reflection points are only received by the respective radar apparatus and none of the other radar apparatuses. Id. Also, the language “of the plurality of radar apparatuses being combined” is unclear because apparatus is structure and, in this context, structures can not be combined. Id. Similar language is used in claims 10 – 11. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 – 9 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Important consideration related to the Graham factors is the equation for Range resolution as shown in Table 5.2 below. The relevant symbols are as follows: τ (pulse width), c (speed of light), β (bandwidth). Also, note that the PRF (pulse repetition frequency) in the numerator should be PRI (pulse repletion interval) in the equation for range ambiguity.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1Radar Principles for Non-Specialist 3rd Edition by John C. Toomay
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 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bialer (US 20160084944 A1) in view of Aizawa (US 20130120184 A1) and Arage (US 20160084943 A1).
Note: The two cases as claimed in claim 11 are contingent claims and may not need to be discloses or taught by the prior art in order to reject the claims.
As to claims 1 and 10 – 11, Bialer discloses an information processing system, comprising:
a plurality of radar apparatuses (Fig. 15 “antennas”);
information processing apparatuses (Fig. 1 item 120 Para. 16 “one or more processors 125) that each include a distance calculator used to calculate a distance to an object, the calculation of the distance being performed using at least one of the plurality of radar apparatuses, and each include a processor that causes, when the distance to the object is less than a specified threshold, and causes, when the distance to the object is greater than or equal to the specified threshold, a process of detecting an in-common reflection point on the object to be performed, the detection of the in-common reflection point on the object being performed by digital radar signals (Fig. 1 item 120 implies digital) and
an output apparatus that includes an output section that outputs reflection-point information regarding the reflection point on a basis of the detection processes performed by the processors (Fig. 4 step 430).
Missing feature regarding case 1 and as best understood (see 112-b), Bialer does not teach processing each reflection point with its respective antenna.
In the same field of endeavor, Aizawa teaches “The area of the target object is detected based on the reflection points at the respective antennas (Para. 4).” Because Bialer is directed to automotive radars, see Bialer Paras. 3, 14 – 15 and claim 7, there exist a need to reduce the risk of collision.
In view of the teachings of Aizawa, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Aizawa to Bialer’s close targets in order to determine size of an obstacle thereby allowing for defensive driving thus improving safety.
Aizawa also teaches an A/D converter to convert signals into digital for processing. The motivation to apply digital signals is to allow for calculation that allow for quick determination of range, velocity and angle.
Missing feature regarding case 2 and as best understood (see 112-b), Bialer does not teach processing a single reflection point using the combination of data received by all radar apparatuses, e.g. antennae, to process said single reflection point.
In the same field of endeavor, Arage teaches “The slope of the phase-difference across antenna-array elements for successive measurement cycles is computed. The mean of the slope will depend on geometry of detected radar object(s) or target(s), and can be used to distinguish between single point radar-target (e.g. pedestrian and bicyclist) and in size extended radar-target(s) (e.g. Vehicle) (Para. 59).”
In view of the teachings of Arage, it would have been possible to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply the teachings of Arage to Bialer’s far targets in order to distinguish between an object such as pedestrian in contract to another vehicle thereby allowing a driver to make prioritized decisions thereby improving safety.
As to claim 2, Bialer in view of Aizawa and Arage teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus includes a first estimator that estimates the reflection-point information regarding the different reflection point on a basis of a radar signal related to the object when the distance to the object is less than the specified threshold, and the output apparatus includes a second estimator that estimates the reflection-point information regarding the in- common reflection point on a basis of radar signals related to the object when the distance to the object is greater than or equal to the specified threshold (as cited in claim 1 Bialer: Para. 16 wherein the one or more processors meets the scope of two calculator and Para. 4 distinguishes between close and far targets and that only single reflection point is used for far target due to resolution constraints.).
As to claim 3, Bialer in view of Aizawa and Arage teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the reflection-point information includes at least one of a distance, a speed, or a direction (Bialer: Para. 4 distance. See also Para. 15.).
As to claim 4, Bialer in view of Aizawa and Arage teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the specified threshold includes what is determined on a basis of a positional relationship between the radar apparatuses of the plurality of radar apparatuses arranged (as cited by Bialer Para. 4 wherein the positional relationship is how close and far away an object is from the radar.).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 9 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose or teach the feature in-common point detection process being based on a second estimation result. The Examiner does not know of reason to modify even if said feature was found.
Claims 6 – 8 are dependent on claim 5 and thus allowable for same reason claim 5 is potentially allowable.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or teach the feature outputting the results of the first case and second case as claimed to two different networks, and the Examiner is unaware of a reason to modify even if said feature was found.
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 at 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