DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
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 Foreign Application No. (JP) 2021-136761 filed on 25th August, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” as being anticipated by ISHIKAWA (WO 2021/130818 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, ISHIKAWA teaches a signal processing device (Pg. 2, Ln. 31-47: control device 101), comprising:
a wave-transmission signal generator (transmission unit 123) configured to generate a wave-transmission signal (transmission signal) for wave transmission of a sound wave, and to include a first chirp signal (up chirp wave) and a second chirp signal (down chirp wave) in the wave-transmission signal (Pg. 4, Ln. 33-58; Fig. 3);
a wave-reception signal output unit (reception unit 124) configured to output a wave-reception signal (received signal) based on reception of a sound wave (Pg. 4, Ln. 33-Pg. 5, Ln 20; Fig. 3);
a derivation unit (speed calculation unit 128) configured to derive a relative speed (relative velocity v1 and J; ) with respect to a target object (object 2) based on a first timing (correlation peak position L; fig. 15), at which part of the wave-reception signal corresponding to the first chirp signal is detected, and a second timing (correlation peak position R; fig. 15), at which part of the wave-reception signal corresponding to the second chirp signal is detected (Pg. 11, Ln. 21-45; Pg. 12, Ln 24-38; Pg. 15, Ln. 51-Pg. 15, Ln 4), wherein one of the first chirp signal and the second chirp signal has a frequency that increases with time (up chirp wave), and the other of the first chirp signal and the second chirp signal has a frequency that decreases with time (down chirp wave) detected (Pg. 9, Ln. 1-13).
Referring to Claim 2, ISHIKAWA teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the derivation unit is configured to derive the relative speed based on a result of comparison between a time from a first end timing, at which the first chirp signal of the wave-transmission signal ends, until a second end timing, at which the second chirp signal of the wave-transmission signal ends, and a time from the first timing until the second timing (Pg. 11, Ln. 21-45; Fig. 15; Fig. 18: “transmission end time -tl of paired pulse L”, the “transmission end time t2 of paired pulse R”, “t2+tl”, and the “difference between correlation peak position Land correlation peak position R”; path length Land path length Rare compared to derive the relative speed v1I. The path length Land path length R in document 1, “t2+tl” (= “time from the first end timing when the first chirp signal of the transmitted wave signal ends to the second end timing when the second chirp signal of the transmitted wave signal ends”), and the “difference between correlation peak position L and correlation peak position R” (= “time from the first timing to the second timing”) can be converted into each other).
Referring to Claim 4, ISHIKAWA teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the derivation unit (speed calculation unit 128) is configured to detect, based on a correlation between the wave-reception signal and each of a plurality of pieces of reference data, part of the wave-reception signal corresponding to the second chirp signal (Pg. 16, Ln. 30-43).
Referring to Claim 5, ISHIKAWA teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein a frequency variation width of the first chirp signal is identical to a frequency variation width of the second chirp signal (Pg. 11, Ln. 21-45; Pg. 12, Ln 24-38; Pg. 15, Ln. 51-Pg. 15, Ln 4: the paired pulse wave satisfies "the frequency change width of the first chirp signal and the frequency change width of the second chirp signal are the same).
Claim 6 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a sound wave system, comprising: the signal processing device according to claim 1; and further comprising a sound-wave transmission reception device configured to be directly or indirectly connected to the signal processing device (Pg. 2, Ln. 28-Pg. 3, Ln. 45: transmitter 106; receiver 107' and the detection device 100). Therefore Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 7 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and refers to a vehicle (Pg. 2, Ln. 28-Pg. 3, Ln. 45: vehicle 1) comprising the sound wave system according to claim 6. Therefore Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIKAWA as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of TAKAMURA (WO 2020/004609 A1).
Referring to Claim 3, ISHIKAWA teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the wave-transmission signal generator (transmission unit 123) is configured to include, in the wave-transmission signal (transmission signal), the first chirp signal (up chirp wave), and the second chirp signal (down chirp wave); but doesn’t explicitly teach including a constant-frequency signal, and in order of the first chirp signal, the constant-frequency signal, and the second chirp signal.
TAKAMURA teaches the order of interposing a signal of a constant frequency between the first chirp signal and the second chirp signal of the transmission signal (Pg. 7, Ln. 43-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the signal processing device disclosed in ISHIKAWA with the order of interposing a signal of a constant frequency between the first chirp signal and the second chirp signal of the transmission signal taught in TAKAMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a temporal separation that prevents overlap between the chirps; thereby reducing transient effects at the transition, minimizing frequency domain leakage and offering stable reference for phase and amplitude; and further achieving improved accuracy in range and Doppler estimation.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
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 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/DANIEL L MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645