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, 9-14, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold[1] (US 2007/0096943).
Claim 1: Arnold[1] discloses A traffic monitoring system for monitoring objects within an intersection, the traffic monitoring system comprising:
one or more radar subsystems positioned adjacent to the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11);
each of the one or more radar subsystems configured to receive returns from a respective angular field-of-view (FOV) within the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043); and
wherein the one or more radar subsystems are configured to track objects as the objects traverse the respective angular FOVs within the intersection (para 0058-0072 disclosing the tracking process of track generation, maintenance, pruning, etc.)
Claim 2: Arnold[1] discloses the one or more radar subsystems comprise a first radar subsystem and a second radar subsystem, and the first radar subsystem and the second radar subsystem are positioned at diagonally opposite corners of the intersection (fig 11 elements 20, 120)
Claim 3: Arnold[1] discloses the first radar subsystem is configured to receive returns from a first angular FOV; the second radar subsystem is configured to receive returns from a second angular FOV; and the first angular FOV and the second angular FOV are adjacent to each other with respect to the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043);
Claim 4: Arnold[1] discloses the first radar subsystem is configured to receive returns from a first angular FOV; the second radar subsystem is configured to receive returns from a second angular FOV; and the first angular FOV and the second angular FOV monitor all vehicles in the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043);
Claim 9: Arnold[1] discloses a centralized controller unit is configured to track the object within the intersection by detecting the object moving through the one or more FOVs associated with the one or more radar subsystems (para 0058-0072 disclosing the tracking process of track generation, maintenance, pruning, etc.)
Claim 10: Arnold[1] discloses the traffic monitoring system is configured to distinguish between targets traveling along a first trajectory and a second trajectory through the intersection (para 0058-0072 disclosing the tracking process of track generation, maintenance, pruning, etc.)
Claim 11: Arnold[1] discloses A computer-implemented method for monitoring objects within an intersection, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving returns from one or more radar subsystems positioned adjacent to the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11);
wherein each of the one or more radar subsystems is configured to receive returns from a respective angular field-of-view (FOV) within the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043); and
tracking objects as the objects traverse the respective angular FOVs within the intersection (para 0058-0072 disclosing the tracking process of track generation, maintenance, pruning, etc.)
Claim 12: Arnold[1] discloses the one or more radar subsystems comprise a first radar subsystem and a second radar subsystem, and the first radar subsystem and the second radar subsystem are positioned at diagonally opposite corners of the intersection (fig 11 elements 20, 120)
Claim 13: Arnold[1] discloses receiving from the first radar subsystem returns from a first angular FOV, receiving from the second radar subsystem returns from a second angular FOV; and wherein the first angular FOV and the second angular FOV are adjacent to each other with respect to the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043);
Claim 14: Arnold[1] discloses receiving from the first radar subsystem returns from a first angular FOV, receiving from the second radar subsystem returns from a second angular FOV; and the first angular FOV and the second angular FOV monitor all vehicles in the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043);
Claim 19: Arnold[1] discloses tracking the object within the intersection by detecting the object moving through the one or more FOVs associated with the one or more radar subsystems (para 0058-0072 disclosing the tracking process of track generation, maintenance, pruning, etc.)
Claim 20: Arnold[1] discloses distinguishing between targets traveling along a first trajectory and a second trajectory through the intersection (para 0058-0072 disclosing the tracking process of track generation, maintenance, pruning, etc.)
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) 5-8, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold[1] (US 2007/0096943) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnold[2] (US 7889098).
Claim 5: Arnold[1] does not specifically disclose the one or more radar subsystems are positioned adjacent to each other at a single location relative to the intersection.
Arnold[2] discloses an intersection traffic monitoring radar comprising 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)
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Arnold[2] in order to cover the extent of an intersection from a single joint structure.
Claim 6: Arnold[1] discloses the angular FOVs form a contiguous view across the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043);
Claim 7: Arnold[2] discloses a shared support structure that physically supports the one or more radar subsystems (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 8: Arnold[2] discloses the shared support structure comprises mounting points that physically direct one or more antennas of the one or more radar subsystems 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 15: Arnold[1] does not specifically disclose the one or more radar subsystems are positioned adjacent to each other at a single location relative to the intersection.
Arnold[2] discloses an intersection traffic monitoring radar comprising 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)
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Arnold[2] in order to cover the extent of an intersection from a single joint structure.
Claim 16: Arnold[1] discloses the angular FOVs form a contiguous view across the intersection (fig 1, 3, 11 showing FOV’s of respective sensors, para 0042, 0043);
Claim 17: Arnold[1] discloses a shared support structure that physically supports the one or more radar subsystems (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 18: Arnold[1] discloses the shared support structure comprises mounting points that physically direct one or more antennas of the one or more radar subsystems 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)
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