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. DE102021124012.3, filed on 09/16/2021 and Application No. , filed on 09/16/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a means for detecting localization sensor positions of the localization sensors” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation may be found in claim 3 and further in the specification as originally filed: pg. 4, paragraph 3, provides a detailed example of the encoder system configured to detect the positions of the localization sensors.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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, 4-6, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Giere et al. (US 20180313952 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Giere discloses
A radar system (100) (see pg. 1, paragraph 0005, “The object of the present invention is to provide…a radar system”) with the following features:
a first localization sensor (1.1) (see Fig. 10, Sensor 1), and
a second localization sensor (10.1) (see Fig. 10, Sensor 2),
wherein the first localization sensor (1.1) and the second localization sensor (10.1) are designed as radar sensors (see pg. 1, paragraph 0001, the sensors are radar sensors),
wherein the first localization sensor (1.1) and the second localization sensor (10.1) are arranged on a common carrier (3.1) offset in a movement direction (3.7) such that they have a sensor offset (3.8) (see Fig. 10, arrangement of sensors on helicopter carrier), the carrier (3.1) being arranged movably in the movement direction (3.7) (see Fig. 10, helicopter can move in movement directions),
a means for detecting localization sensor positions of the localization sensors (1.1, 10.1) (see pg. 1, paragraph 0014, “The individual sensor units are controlled and oriented by the signal processing device both in a vertical and in a horizontal direction.”),
wherein a first localization radiation lobe (1.3) can be generated by means of the first localization sensor (1.1) and a second localization radiation lobe (10.3) can be generated by means of the second localization sensor (10.1) (see Fig. 3, two lobes 311 and 321),
wherein the localization radiation lobes (1.3, 10.3) are designed to have the shape of a fan with a respective main fan plane in each case (1.4, 10.4), wherein a first main fan plane (1.4) of the first localization radiation lobe (1.3) is arranged at a first angle of incidence (1.5) relative to an imaginary base plane (30) arranged parallel to the movement direction (3.7) and a second main fan plane (10.4) of the second localization radiation lobe (10.3) is arranged at a second angle of incidence (10.5) relative to the base plane (30) (see Fig. 3, fan shaped lobes at different angles), and
wherein the first angle of incidence (1.5) and the second angle of incidence (10.5) differ (see Fig. 3, angles from the sensor lobes are different).
Regarding claim 4, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the localization radiation lobes (1.3, 10.3) are arranged such that the first main fan plane (1.4) and the second main fan plane (10.4) are inclined in opposite directions relative to the base plane (30) with respect to the movement direction (see Fig. 10, sensors and their lobes face opposite directions).
Regarding claim 5, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the first angle of incidence (1.5) and the second angle of incidence (10.5) are of the same magnitude (see Fig. 10, the FOV [field of view] for each sensor is the same magnitude; Figs. 2 and 3, lobe angles have the same magnitude).
Regarding claim 6, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the localization radiation lobes (1.3, 10.3) each have a main opening angle (56) and a transverse opening angle (58) arranged perpendicular thereto, the main opening angle (56) being at least 90°, preferably at least 120° and the ratio of the main opening angle (56) to the transverse opening angle (58) is more than 5:1, preferably more than 10:1 (see pg. 1, paragraph 0007, “In the case of multiple sensor units, for example, in the case of detection in all dimensions, the individual sensors may be controlled more selectively, with less latency time.”).
Regarding claim 10, Giere further discloses
The radar system according claim 1,
characterized in that
the radar system (100) has at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) for identifying an object (8), an identification radiation lobe (2.2) being able to be generated by means of the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1), (see pg. 2, paragraph 0031, “In addition, a velocity calculation and a range calculation are carried out by means of a two-dimensional FFT, and subsequently, via a so-called constant false-alarm rate (CFAR) algorithm, it is possible to search for objects which stand out from the noise of the sensor or from a noisy background, so-called clutter (pre-targets).”; pg. 2, paragraph 0032, “The calculation steps of the range and velocity calculation, position determination, and the differentiation of signals from the background noise and ground reflections, allows selecting only these signals as relevant objects”; pg. 4, paragraph 0057, “an object detection algorithm selects the object data from this common sensor activation unit”) and wherein the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) is designed as a fixed radar sensor (see pg. 4, paragraph 0060, “two sensor devices which are fixedly mounted on the helicopter structure”).
Regarding claim 11, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 10,
characterized in that
the identification radiation lobe (2.2) has a main opening angle (62) of at least 90°, preferably of at least 120°, and the identification radiation lobe (2.2) has a transverse opening angle (64) of at least 90°, preferably at least 120° (see pg. 1, paragraph 0007, “In the case of multiple sensor units, for example, in the case of detection in all dimensions, the individual sensors may be controlled more selectively, with less latency time.”)
Regarding claim 12, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 10,
characterized in that
the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) is arranged on the stator (4.1) (see pg. 4, paragraph 0060, “two sensor devices which are fixedly mounted on the helicopter structure”).
Regarding claim 14, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 10,
characterized in that
the radar system (100) has a central computing unit (5) which is designed to assign the reflected identification signal to the reflected localization signals (71.1, 71.2) (see pg. 2, paragraph 0017, “the central signal processing device is able to create selected object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling, reading out, and evaluating the individual sensor units. These object lists represent signals which are received by the individual sensor units and which have been preprocessed and preselected,”).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giere et al. (US 20180313952 A1) in view of Armstrong-Crews et al. (US 12117520 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Armstrong-Crews discloses
The radar system according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the carrier (3.1) is designed as a rotor, which is arranged to be rotatable relative to a stator (4.1) about an axis of rotation (3.6), so that the movement direction (3.7) is designed to be rotary (see col. 11, lines 32-46, sensors can be mounted on a rotatable platform).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Armstrong-Crews into the invention of Giere. Both Giere and Armstrong-Crews are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar object detection systems for moving vehicles. Giere discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Giere fails to disclose the sensors on a rotor. This feature is disclosed by Armstrong-Crews where the sensors can be mounted on a rotatable platform. The combination of Giere and Armstrong-Crews would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the detection ability of the sensors by allowing them to rotate to face different directions, saving money by not having to manufacture more sensors to transmit and receive signals in multiple directions.
Regarding claim 7, Giere further discloses [Note: what Giere fails to disclose is strike-through]
The radar system according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the first localization sensor (1.1) is designed to capture a first reflected localization signal (71.1), and the second localization sensor (10.1) is designed to capture a second reflected localization signal (71.2) (see pg. 2, paragraph 0030, “a signal processing method which is used in sensor arrays for the direction-dependent reception or transmission of signals”; pg. 4, claim 4, “the detection of received signals from the at least two sensor units takes place according to a multiplexing method”), and wherein a signal offset (74) is arranged between the first reflected localization signal (71.1) and the second reflected localization signal (71.2) (see pg. 2, paragraph 0025, “In the time-division multiplexing method, the sensor units are read out in a time-offset manner”), and that the radar system (100) has a localization computing unit (3.3.1, 3.3.2)
Armstrong-Crews discloses
which is designed to determine a reflection elevation angle (54) using the ratio of the signal offset (74) to the sensor offset (3.8) (see col. 5, lines 27-38, device can obtain elevation angle measurements).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Armstrong-Crews into the invention of Giere. Giere discloses obtaining reflected signals and a signal offset; however, Giere fails to disclose obtaining an elevation angle. This feature is disclosed by Armstrong-Crews where the device can obtain elevation angle measurements from signal information. The combination of Giere and Armstrong-Crews would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve accuracy of object detection with additional angle information of object position.
Regarding claim 8, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 7,
characterized in that
the localization computing unit (3.3.1, 3.3.2) is designed to detect a reflection position value and a distance value from the first reflected localization signal (71.1) and/or the second reflected localization signal (71.2) (see pg. 2, paragraph 0032, “The calculation steps of the range and velocity calculation, position determination, and the differentiation of signals from the background noise and ground reflections, allows selecting only these signals as relevant objects, already at the raw data level. Object lists are created which are made up of these preselected signal data of the sensor units”), wherein a localization data set is formed (see pg. 2, paragraph 0017, “the central signal processing device is able to create selected object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling, reading out, and evaluating the individual sensor units. These object lists represent signals which are received by the individual sensor units and which have been preprocessed and preselected”) by the reflection elevation angle, the reflection position value and the distance value.
Regarding claim 9, Giere further discloses
The radar system according to claim 8,
characterized in that
the localization computing unit (3.3.1, 3.3.2) is designed to compare a first localization data set with a second localization data set, and to further process only differing data (see pg. 2, paragraph 0017, “the central signal processing device is able to create selected object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling, reading out, and evaluating the individual sensor units. These object lists represent signals which are received by the individual sensor units and which have been preprocessed and preselected”).
Regarding claim 13, Armstrong-Crews discloses
The radar system according to claim 10,
characterized in that
the radar system (100) has at least one identification computing unit (4.3.1, 4.3.2) which is designed to identify a radar signature of a reflected identification signal (see col. 15, lines 3-7, “A vehicle radar system can be implemented as a SAR system that can emit signals at a scene of targets and measure the voltage returned from the scene. From these voltages, one or more backscatter values (e.g., radar cross sections (RCS(s))) can be determined”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Armstrong-Crews into the invention of Giere. Giere discloses the limitations of claim 10; however, Giere fails to disclose identifying a radar signature of a reflected signal. This feature is disclosed by Armstrong-Crews where the radar can detect radar cross sections. The combination of Giere and Armstrong-Crews would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to “create 2D images and/or 3D reconstructions of the vehicle's environment that shows positions and arrangement of objects relative to the vehicle.” (see Armstrong-Crews col. 15, lines 19-22).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claim 3 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 3, an encoder system for detecting localization sensor positions. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole.
Accordingly, claim 3 is deemed to have allowable subject matter.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648