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 2021-177854, filed on October 29, 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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 appears to have grammatical errors because the claim is directed to several instances of stating “set of radar” wherein radar is singular. Also, claim 12 repeatedly claims “a set of radar” six times throughout the claim. In each limitation, it is unclear as to whether language “the radar” is part of or not part of the language “a set of radar.” The Examiner cannot reasonably match up the language of the claim with any of the figures such as Figure 9 of the specification with any reasonable level of certainty and without actually changing the language and/or definitions of the words used in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be fully determined, thus the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20190079177 A1).
As to claims 1 and 14 – 15, Lee discloses a radar image synthesizing device, comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 7) configured to;
acquire a plurality of radar images based on a measuring result of each of a plurality of radars disposed at different locations (Fig. 2A),
generate a synthesized image in which the plurality of radar images are synthesized (Fig. 1 step 102 synthesize overlapping radar images.),
while using a position at which a product of a beam width of the radar and a distance from the radar becomes equal in a set of at least any two radars (Fig. 3A middle example shows the left and right FOV’s being of the same main beamwidth and same range to the target being overlapped by the left and right respective radar’s main beamwidths. See also Fig. 5A that shows the imaged area that is mutually inclusive (overlapped) to both radars at an equal distance from each radar shown to have the same field-of-views (FOV’s) thus having the same result as the claimed limitation.),
as a boundary between the radar images (Fig. 1 step 102 synthesize overlapping images such as the overlapped images shown in Fig. 3 middle example and Fig. 5; again, the overlapped (inclusive) area is same distance from two radars each of said two radars having same beam-width), and
display the synthesized image (Fig. 1 generate synthesized image).
As to claim 2, Lee teaches the radar image synthesizing device of claim 1, further comprising an accepter configured to accept parameters indicative of a position of each of the radars, and a beam width of each of the radars (Fig. 1 step 101 beamforming to a particular position and Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view Tsujimoto (US 20130271593 A1).
As to claim 3, Lee does not disclose the radar image synthesizing device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry displays the synthesized image further including a line of the boundary.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsujimoto teaches “the combined-boundary-region display data generation means may generate area data in which the pieces of divided image data overlap, as image data to be used for an observer to recognize the combined boundary regions (Para. 39).”
In view of the teachings of Tsujimoto, it would have been obvious to apply a line boundary to the synthesized image because doing so results in a predictable result wherein one of ordinary skill may be motivated to do so in order for a user to more conveniently, accurately and quickly determined that target or area of interest.
As to claim 4, Lee in view of Tsujimoto (as applied to claim 3) teaches the radar image synthesizing device of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry displays the synthesized image further including a line of the boundary.
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view DuHadway (US 20120310504 A1).
As to claim 5, Lee does not teach the radar image synthesizing device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry displays the synthesized image further including positional information (of each radar relative to environment including a target of interest per Spec. at Para. 82) on each of the radars.
In the same field of endeavor, DuHadway teaches “Once the selected vehicle position 244 is defined with reference to the symbolic map 118 as depicted in FIG. 4, the location of each of the radar detected objects is defined with reference to the symbolic map 118 using the relative position of each of the radar detected objects with respect to the selected vehicle position 244 based upon the radar data (Para. 47).”
In view of the teachings of DuHadway, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to include relative positioning (positional information) of each radar with respect to the target in order to provide a user with a visual indication of direction of said target thereby improving user awareness.
As to claim 6, Lee in view of DuHadway (as applied to claim 5) teaches the radar image synthesizing device of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry displays the synthesized image further including positional information on each of the radars.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view Tsujimoto and DuHadway.
As to claim 7, Lee in view of Tsujimoto in view of DuHadway (as applied to claim 5) teaches the radar image synthesizing device of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry displays the synthesized image further including positional information on each of the radars.
As to claim 8, Lee in view of Tsujimoto in view of DuHadway (as applied to claim 5) teaches the radar image synthesizing device of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry displays the synthesized image further including positional information on each of the radars.
Claims 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view Maiouf (US 20200160726 A1)
As to claim 9, Lee does not teach the radar image synthesizing device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radars are mounted on a ship. Precede to claim 10.
As to claim 10, Lee does not teach the radar image synthesizing device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of radars are a radar disposed at the bow side of the ship, and a radar disposed at the stern side of the ship. Precede to claim 11.
As to claim 11, Lee does not teach the radar image synthesizing device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of radars are a radar disposed at the bow side of the ship, a radar disposed at the stern side of the ship, a radar disposed at the port side of the ship, and a radar disposed at the starboard side of the ship. Precede to claim 12.
As to claim 12 (as best understood), Lee does not teach the radar image synthesizing device of claim 11, wherein the set of radars include: a set of the radar disposed at the bow side of the ship, and the radar disposed at the port side of the ship; a set of the radar disposed at the bow side of the ship, and the radar disposed at the starboard side of the ship; a set of the radar disposed at the stern side of the ship, and the radar disposed at the port side of the ship; a set of the radar disposed at the stern side of the ship, and the radar disposed at the starboard side of the ship; and a set of the radar disposed at the port side of the ship, and the radar disposed at the starboard side of the ship.
Lee shows a vehicle with a plurality of radars on every side of said vehicle with some said sides having more than one radar. See e.g., Fig. 3A. Lee does not teach a ship.
In the same field of endeavor, Maiouf teaches “The propulsion control system 20 also includes one or more proximity sensors 72, 74, 76, and 78. Although one proximity sensor is shown on each of the bow, stern, and port and starboard sides of the vessel 10, fewer or more sensors could be provided at each sensor location and/or provided at other sensor locations, such as on the hardtop of the vessel 10 (Para. 22).”
In view of the teachings of Maiouf, it would have been obvious to apply the radar system of Lee to a ship because doing so would open up a new market for Lee’s radar resulting in more sales.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view Maiouf and in further view of Mizuno (US 20200216152 A1).
As to claim 13, Lee in view of Maiouf does not teach the radar image synthesizing device of claim 9, wherein the display processor displays the synthesized image centering on a position of a bridge of the ship.
In the same field of endeavor, Mizuno teaches “and display the scenery image on an image displaying means, thereby enabling a generation of and a display of a scenery image viewed from any position in any direction, such as a scenery image viewed from a cockpit of a ship in the direction of forward movement of the ship or a scenery image viewed from a rear portion of a deck of the ship in the backward direction (Para. 5).”
In view of the teachings of Mizuno, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to center the image on the center of vehicle, e.g., cabin, cockpit or bridge, to allow for a 360 degree view thereby increasing situational awareness in all directions.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 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 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