DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper. Much of the language of the claims is simply a list of desired results without clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 10, the claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the radar data and/or the camera data is put to use or output a concrete result (i.e. to detect a target).
Regarding claim 1, it is also rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps is: receiving the radar data in the first mode and the second mode. Without receiving such data, it is unclear of whether any radar data are utilized for detecting a target.
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claim 13, it is unclear of what is meant and encompasses “a reference speed” as claimed. It lacks any definite limits within the boundary of the claim. It is not clear of based on what criteria, conditions or how and in what manner that such referenced speed is determined or referenced.
Regarding claim 10, it is also rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps is: transmitting the radar signals in the first mode and the second mode.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. The claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,024,191 discloses a driver assistance system for a vehicle having a decision engine and a plurality of active object-detection sensors including two radar sensors mounted at opposed locations on the vehicle relative to a longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. A field of view of each radar sensor is directed away from the centerline and forward of the vehicle and overlaps with the field of view of the other radar sensor in a region of overlap crossing the centerline forward of the vehicle. The decision engine receives signals from the sensors and determines the presence of an object in the regions of overlap on the basis of signals from only each of the two radar sensors among the active object-detection sensors of the system. The decision engine is thus able to command vehicle functions such as braking or acceleration on the basis of the determination.
US 10,922,561 discloses an object recognition device installed on a vehicle includes a first camera detecting a first object, a second camera detecting a second object, a ranging sensor detecting a third object, and a controller. The controller sets first to third determination ranges with respect to detected positions of the first to third objects, respectively, and executes fusion processing by comparing the determination ranges. First and second pixel densities being pixel densities of the first and second objects are determined based on detected distances of the first and second objects, angles of view and numbers of pixels of the first and second cameras, respectively. The controller sets the first determination range larger as the first pixel density is lower, and sets the second determination range larger as the second pixel density is lower.
US 10,989,791 discloses a system for tracking the movement of an object includes a radar device having a first field of view. The radar device generates radar data indicating one of a range corresponding to a distance of a moving object within the first field of view from the radar device and a range rate corresponding to a rate at which the distance is changing relative to the radar device. The system also includes an imager having a second field of view at least partially overlapping the first field of view in an overlap field of view. The imager generates imager data measuring, when the object is in the second field of view, an angular position of the object relative to the imager in at least one dimension. In addition, the system includes a processor combining the radar data and imager data, when the object is in the overlap field of view, to identify a track of the object in at least two dimensions.
US 2014/0028487 discloses a radar apparatus. A setting unit is configured to set a first range including at least a reference target. A deriving unit is configured to derive a representative position of targets included in the first range on the basis of position information of the targets included in the first range. An acquiring unit is configured to acquire vehicle information indicating that the vehicle is running in a curve-shaped lane or a road shape in front of the vehicle is a curve shape. When the acquiring unit acquires the vehicle information, the setting unit sets a second range wider than the first range and the deriving unit derives a representative position of targets included in the second range on the basis of position information of the targets included in the second range.
WO 2022/196884 discloses a vehicle detection system and vehicle detection method which can detect a vehicle through the blended use of a stereo camera and radar, in order to accurately detect a vehicle in a dynamic road environment in which vehicle speeds and distances are always changing and distances between vehicles can also change in various ways.
CN 114384522 discloses a system and method for performing sensor fusion using a depth imaging and a radar system involves transmitting radio frequency (RF) energy from a radar system to a region, and simultaneously emitting light to the region using a light source, receiving reflected light at a depth imaging aligned with the light source, and receiving RF reflections at the radar system. processing the reflected light, obtaining azimuth angle, elevation angle, distance, distance variance and reflectivity for each pixel forming the area. processing the RF reflection to provide azimuth angle, elevation, distance, distance variance, speed and speed variance of the pixel subset the region of interest, performing sensor fusion comprises using the azimuth angle generated by the depth imaging, elevation, distance variance and reflectivity, and distance generated by the radar system, speed and speed variance.
JP 6996353 discloses an object recognition device and a vehicle travel control system mounted on a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights