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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection unit” and “correction unit” in claims 6 and 8. Examiner interprets them to correspond to a processor along with an algorithm needed to perform the functions of the detection and corrections units, which are described in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20210190968 A1.
Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches
Claim 1, 6. (Original) An object detection system comprising:
an infrastructure sensor(30 ) mounted to an arm(32) extending from a stationary object fixed to a road surface or equipment[0032](street light pole),(fig. 1)
the arm being rotatable in a circumferential direction of the stationary object(fig. 2)+[0002]; and
an angle sensor(40) disposed at the arm(fig. 3)[0034]
the angle sensor being configured to detect a rotation angle of the arm, [0034]
wherein the infrastructure sensor(30) includes a detection unit configured to detect a position of an object present in a detection target area of the infrastructure sensor,([0033]) and
a correction unit configured to correct the position of the object detected by the detection unit, based on the rotation angle detected by the angle sensor.[0033-0034](tracking performed with calibrated parameters and hence correction was performed)
but does not teach
an angle sensor disposed at a place where the arm is connected to the stationary object,
Although D1 does not explicitly teach an angle sensor disposed at a place where the arm is connected to the stationary object it is just a matter of simple placement of the parts In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) MPEP 2144.04 VI (c).
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The object detection system according to claim 1, wherein when the rotation angle detected by the angle sensor exceeds a first threshold, the correction unit outputs abnormality information [0036]
But does not explicitly teach
without correcting the position of the object.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach Due to the fact that fault information is transmitted calculating or not calculating unnecessary value is just a matter of Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) MPEP 2144.04 II (a).
Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The object detection system according to claim 1, further comprising an inclination sensor(42) configured to detect an inclination angle of the stationary object relative to a reference direction, wherein when the inclination angle detected by the inclination sensor exceeds a second threshold, the correction unit outputs abnormality information[0036]
But does not explicitly teach
without correcting the position of the object.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach Due to the fact that fault information is transmitted calculating or not calculating unnecessary value is just a matter of Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) MPEP 2144.04 II (a).
Claim(s) 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20210190968 A1 in view of D2 US 20030055561 A1 .
Regarding claims 7 and 8 D1 teaches
Claim 7. (Original) An object detection system comprising:
an infrastructure sensor mounted to an arm extending from a stationary object fixed to a road surface or equipment, the arm being rotatable in a circumferential direction of the stationary object; and(See rejection for claim 1)
the infrastructure sensor includes
a detection unit configured to detect a position of an object present in a detection target area of the infrastructure sensor, and(See rejection for claim 1)
a correction unit configured to correct the position of the object detected by the detection unit, based on a rotation angle of the arm relative to the stationary object, (See rejection for claim 1)
but does not explicitly teach
a gyro sensor configured to detect an angular velocity of the arm, wherein
the rotation angle being obtained based on the angular velocity detected by the gyro sensor.
D2 teaches alternative type of sensor to measure the rotation angle
a gyro sensor configured to detect an angular velocity of the arm, wherein
the rotation angle being obtained based on the angular velocity detected by the gyro sensor. [0050]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D2 in order provide alternative well known instrument form measuring the angle especially in scenarios when the magnetic field is shielded or obscured.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are 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 Examiner has not found any prior art that would render obvious the claim limitations directed to
“wherein the angle sensor includes:
a first member fixed to the stationary object; and
a second member fixed to the arm and configured to rotate in a circumferential direction of the first member in accordance with rotation of the arm, and
detects a rotation angle of the second member relative to the first member, thereby detecting the rotation angle of the arm relative to the stationary object”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELENA SERAYDARYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, 7:30-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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 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.
/HELENA H SERAYDARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3648C
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648