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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold (US 7889098).
Claim 1: Arnold discloses A radar system for monitoring vehicles on a roadway, the radar system comprising: a radar control unit; a radar subsystem including one or more antennas, the radar subsystem in communication with the radar control unit; and the radar system configured to: be positioned with the one or more antennas at a single position relative to an intersection, and receive radar data from all traffic entrances into the intersection using the radar subsystem (figs 1 and 2 elements 10, 12, 14, 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 2: Arnold discloses multiple radar subsystems, wherein the multiple radar subsystems are positioned with the one or more antennas at the single position relative to an intersection (figs 1 and 2 elements 10, 12, 14, 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 3: Arnold discloses the radar system comprises a transmitter that is selectively connected to sets of antennas selected from the one or more antennas (fig 3 element 71, col 5 lines 10-54)
Claim 4: Arnold discloses the radar system comprises a transmitter that is simultaneously connected to a set of the one or more antennas (fig 4, col 7 lines 10-50)
Claim 6: Arnold discloses one or more switches connecting a set of the one or more antennas to a transmitter (fig 3 element 71, col 5 lines 10-54)
Claim 7: Arnold discloses the radar control unit is configured to distinguish between targets in a first lane and a second lane of a first roadway at the intersection (col 4 lines 23-29)
Claim 8: Arnold discloses a shared support structure that physically supports the radar control unit, the radar subsystem, and the one or more antennas (figs 1 and 2 element 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 9: Arnold discloses the shared support structure comprises mounting points that physically direct the one or more antennas into predetermined directions that align with different areas of the intersection (figs 1 and 2 element 20, fig 3 element 10A, fig 4 element 10B, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 10: Arnold discloses the shared support structure comprises a shell that at least partially encompasses the radar control unit, the radar subsystem, and the one or more antennas (figs 1 and 2 elements 10, 12, 14, 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 11: Arnold discloses A method for monitoring vehicles on a transportation throughfare with a radar system, the method comprising: positioning the radar system at a single position relative to an intersection; receiving, from one or more antennas within a radar subsystem, radar data from all traffic entrances into the intersection; and wherein the radar system comprises: a radar control unit, and the radar subsystem configured with the one or more antennas and in communication with the radar control unit (figs 1 and 2 elements 10, 12, 14, 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 12: Arnold discloses the radar system comprises multiple radar subsystems, wherein the multiple radar subsystems are positioned with the one or more antennas at the single position relative to an intersection (figs 1 and 2 elements 10, 12, 14, 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 13: Arnold discloses the radar system comprises a transmitter that is selectively connected to sets of antennas selected from the one or more antennas (fig 3 element 71, col 5 lines 10-54)
Claim 14: Arnold discloses the radar system comprises a transmitter that is simultaneously connected to a set of the one or more antennas (fig 4, col 7 lines 10-50)
Claim 16: Arnold discloses activating one or more switches connecting a set of the one or more antennas to a transmitter (fig 3 element 71, col 5 lines 10-54)
Claim 17: Arnold discloses distinguishing, with the radar control unit, between targets in a first lane and a second lane of a first roadway at the intersection (col 4 lines 23-29)
Claim 18: Arnold discloses supporting the radar control unit, the radar subsystem, and the one or more antennas with a shared support structure (figs 1 and 2 element 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 19: Arnold discloses the shared support structure comprises mounting points that physically direct the one or more antennas into predetermined directions that align with different areas of the intersection (figs 1 and 2 element 20, fig 3 element 10A, fig 4 element 10B, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
Claim 20: Arnold discloses the shared support structure comprises a shell that at least partially encompasses the radar control unit, the radar subsystem, and the one or more antennas (figs 1 and 2 elements 10, 12, 14, 20, col 3 lines 61-65, col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 11, col 4 lines 34-48)
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.
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) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold (US 7889098) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yu (US 2020/0249343).
Claim 5, 15: Arnold does not specifically disclose transmitting, with a transmitter, a unique, orthogonal signal through each of a set of the one or more antennas.
In similar field of endeavor, Yu discloses a radar for monitoring plural regions with transmission and reception arrays (fig 1A-1C, para 0005-0007), wherein the radar further comprises transmitting, with a transmitter, a unique, orthogonal signal through each of a set of the one or more antennas (para 0057, claim 11).
It would have been obvious to modify he invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Yu, in order to prevent interference between adjacent antenna arrays (Yu para 0057)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M BYTHROW whose telephone number is (571)270-1468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 830am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648