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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-4, the term “the own vehicle” should be read “the vehicle.”
In claims 1, the term “a predetermined condition is met if the similarity between” should be read “Until a predetermined condition is met when the similarity between.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 3 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “the deviation amount.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation of claim 2 will be read “a deviation amount.”
Regarding claim 2, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “if the similarity exceeds the threshold, corrects the solid object information based on the deviation amount.” It is unclear if the term “similarity” as recited by claim 2 refers to the similarity between a first and second reflection point or if the term refers to a deviation in the radar beam axis as established in claim 2. As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed “similarity” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0060] “The signal processing device 20 may calculate the displacement amount ΔAXP of the radar beam axis AX that occurred during parking, based on the similarity SIM.” For examination purposes “similarity” will be interpreted to refer to the similarity between a first and second reflection point
Claim 3 is also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO(KR20210086375A) in view of Ichimaru(US11238738B2).
Regarding claim 1, CHO discloses
An on-vehicle radar device comprising: a transceiver that emits radio waves (“The sensor unit (100) may include a […] radar” [0041]) in a predetermined area […] receives radio waves reflected by solid objects located in the predetermined area (“The sensor unit (100) can obtain information about surrounding objects” [0040]), and a processor that acquires solid object information related to the solid objects located in the predetermined area based on physical quantities related to the emitted and received radio waves (“Radar can detect the distance and speed of objects” [0045] & “Meanwhile, the sensor fusion unit provided in the sensor unit (100) can fuse the acquired information to maintain optimal recognition performance by utilizing the characteristics of each sensor described above” [0046]), wherein the processor is capable of acquiring a set of stationary reflection point information consisting of information related to each reflection point that is stationary in the vicinity of the own vehicle based on the physical quantities (“The control unit (300) can generate current geometry information” [0064] & “Geometry information may refer to terrain information around the vehicle (1) formed based on map information and object information around the vehicle” [0048])), […] the similarity between the first stationary reflection point information set and the second stationary reflection point information set (“The control unit can determine the similarity by comparing the positions of at least one fixed object included in the first geometry information and the second geometry information” [0010]) is below a threshold (“Meanwhile, if the similarity is less than the reference value, the control unit can guide manual driving to a location where a position signal can be received.” [0061]), wherein the first stationary reflection point information set is obtained at a first point in time before the ignition switch transitions from ON to OFF after the own vehicle has stopped (“when the ignition is turned off, determines first geometry information corresponding to the vehicle location based on the map information and the surrounding object information” [0007]), and the second stationary reflection point information set is obtained at a second point in time after the ignition switch has transitioned back from OFF to ON, before the own vehicle starts moving (“, and when the ignition is turned on after the ignition is turned off, determines second geometry information corresponding to the vehicle location based on the map information and the surrounding object information” [0007]).
Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein solid object information is not transmitted to other devices until a predetermined condition is met. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, emits radio waves in a predetermined area centered on a radar beam axis extending in a specified direction from the own vehicle (FIG.19, Part.5 “Detection range of vehicle sensor”)[…] the processor […] is configured not to provide the solid object information to other devices (“When the control unit 81 has calculated the change point information as described above, the control unit 81 generates a communication packet addressed to the edge server 3 and including the calculated change point information “ [Col.18, ll.1-5]) until a predetermined condition (“positional information of the object Y obtained through the present object recognition process are deviated from each other by a predetermined threshold or more, the control unit 81 sets the positional information of the detected object Y and the difference value therebetween, as the change point information.” [Col.17, ll.62-67])
Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho with the teachings of Ichimaru to incorporate the features of solid object information not being transmitted to other devices until a predetermined condition is met so as to gain the advantage of improving object prediction capabilities [Col.34, ll.18-20, Ichimaru]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cho discloses the device wherein, if the similarity exceeds the threshold, corrects the solid object information based on the deviation amount (“Meanwhile, the control unit can determine and store the change values of X, Y offset and angle when the similarity of each geometry information is greater than or equal to a reference value.“ [0089])
Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the processor acquires deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, the processor acquires the deviation amount of the actual position and posture of the radar beam axis from the design-normal position and posture relative to the body of the own vehicle at a time point before the first point in time (“The control unit 51 complements the vehicle position and the azimuth on the basis of input signals of the vehicle speed sensor 53 and the gyro sensor 54, and grasps the accurate present position and azimuth of the vehicle 5.” [Col.13, ll.11-14]) […] and provides the corrected solid object information to other devices at the point when the own vehicle starts moving (“the mobile terminal corrects the own sensor information on the basis of positional information of the object “ [Col.5, ll.25-27]).
Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho with the teachings of Ichimaru to incorporate the features of acquiring deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions so as to gain the advantage of improving object prediction capabilities [Col.34, ll.18-20, Ichimaru]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the processor acquires deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, the processor acquires the deviation amount based on information related to the behavior of the own vehicle and information related to the reflection points while the own vehicle is running time (“The control unit 51 complements the vehicle position and the azimuth on the basis of input signals of the vehicle speed sensor 53 and the gyro sensor 54, and grasps the accurate present position and azimuth of the vehicle 5.” [Col.13, ll.11-14])
Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho with the teachings of Ichimaru to incorporate the features of acquiring deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions so as to gain the advantage of improving object prediction capabilities [Col.34, ll.18-20, Ichimaru]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the processor acquires deviation information between the design-normal and actual beam axis positions. Ichimaru teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. Ichimaru discloses wherein, the processor, when the similarity is below the threshold (“in the case where […]the azimuth of the vehicle 5 calculated by the control unit 51 on the basis of the measurement data by the gyro sensor 54 are deviated by a predetermined threshold or more, the control unit 51 sets the difference value therebetween, as the change point information.” [Col.15, ll.1-7]), controls a notification device equipped in the own vehicle to present information indicating that the radar beam axis has been displaced to the driver (“At the time t2, the vehicle 5A transmits, to the edge server 3, change point information for making notification of movement (change point)” [Col.21, ll.51-64]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO(KR20210086375A) as modified by Ichimaru(US11238738B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LIU(US20160202355A1)
Regarding claim 5, Cho as modified by Ichimaru discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cho as modified by Ichimaru does not explicitly disclose nor limit measuring the strength of the radio waves. LIU teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. LIU discloses wherein, the physical quantities include the strength of the radio waves received by the transceiver (“The information generating portion 31 measures a representative value (hereinafter referred to as “the intensity of reflection”) of received power of a reflected signal” [0045]).
LIU teaches in the same filed of endeavor of vehicle mounted remote sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho as modified by Ichimaru with the teachings of LIU to incorporate the features of measuring the strength of the radio waves so as to gain the advantage of improving object detection accuracy [0007, LIU]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Gandhi(US20130218398A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0026] “If the difference between the vehicle and object velocities is less than some velocity threshold (e.g., a fixed threshold, a variable threshold that is a fraction or percentage of the vehicle velocity, or some other type of threshold), then it is likely that the sensed object is stationary”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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 on (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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646