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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner suggests applicant rewording the claims to make claims concise and clear. Examiner will exam the application over prior art after clarifications are made.
Drawings
Fig.2 is objected according to the 35 USC § 112 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claimed language “copying the Num1 initial targets into corresponding Num1 targets to be processed, and copying the Num2 initial targets into corresponding Num2 targets to be processed” in claim 1 lines 9-10 and claim 8 lines 9-11, it is not clear how targets can be copied. The “copy” is mentioned in the applicant’s specification paragraphs [0009], [0022], [0040], [0071] (see PGpub US 2025/0244447) without details.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
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 1-9, 11-16 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 1 recites the limitations: 1) "a radar system" in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the "a radar system" in line 4 and the “radar systems” mentioned in line 1. 2) “based on a radar echo signal” in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because it is not clear the “a radar echo signal” in lines 5-6 is from the “radar systems” mentioned in line 1 or from the "a radar system" mentioned in line 4. 3) “the attribute values” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “Num1 attribute values” mentioned in line 4 and the “Num2 attribute values” mentioned in line 5 “the attribute values” in line 6 represents. 4) “the initial target” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “initial target” is not mentioned and it is not clear whether or not “the initial target” in lines 6-7 relates to the “Num1 initial targets” mentioned in line 3 and/or the “Num2 initial targets” mentioned in line 5. 5) “copying the Num1 initial targets into corresponding Num1 targets to be processed, and copying the Num2 initial targets into corresponding Num2 targets to be processed” in lines 9-10. It is indefinite because it is not clear what operation is performed in “copying the Num1 initial targets into corresponding Num1 targets” and “copying the Num2 initial targets into corresponding Num2 targets” since targets cannot be copied and transferred. 6) “Num1 +Num2 targets” in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “Num1 +Num2 targets” in line 11 relates to the “Num1 targets” and “Num2 targets” mentioned in lines 9-10. 7) “azimuth AZ” in line 12. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the “azimuth AZ” in line 12 and the “an azimuth AZ” mentioned in line 6. 8) “each second cluster” in line 13. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear how many clusters exist in the “second cluster”; ii) it is not whether or not “each second cluster” in line 13 relates to the “multiple clusters” mentioned in line 11. 9) “a second cluster” in line 13. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a second cluster” in line 13 is the “each second cluster” in line 13 because of claimed language “performing a processing as follows on each second cluster”. 10) “signal-to-noise ratio S_N of targets” in line 14. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N” in line 14 relates to the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N of the radar echo signal” mentioned in lines 7-8 because signal-to-noise ratio is a measurement of signal instead of “targets”. 11) “each first cluster” in line 16. It is indefinite because it is not clear how many clusters exist in the “first cluster”. 12) “amplitude between any two targets” in line 21. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “amplitude” represents. 13) “a cluster” in line 22. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters previously mentioned relates to the “a cluster” in line 22. 14) “for any cluster” in lines 23. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters previously mentioned relates to the “any cluster” in lines 23 and whether or not the “any cluster” in lines 23 is the “a cluster” in line 22. 15) “each remaining cluster” in line 24. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters previously mentioned relates to the “each remaining cluster” in line 24. 16) “azimuth AZ” in line 25. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “azimuth AZ” in line 25 relates to the “an azimuth AZ” mentioned in line 6 or the “azimuth AZ” mentioned in line 12. 17) “a first target” in line 27. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a first target” in line 27 is the “a first target” mentioned in line 24. 18) “the first target” in line 28. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a first target” mentioned in lines 24 and 27 “the first target” in line 28 represents. 19) “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in line 29. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in line 29 is the same as the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in lines 26-27. 20) “the first target” in lines 29-30. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a first target” in line 24 and in line 27 “the first target” in lines 29-30 represents. 21) “the cluster” in line 30. It is indefinite because it is not clear which cluster previously mentioned (e.g. “each first cluster” mentioned in line 16, “each cluster among the N clusters” mentioned in line 20, “a cluster” mentioned in line 22, “for any cluster” mentioned in line 23, “each remaining cluster” mentioned in line 24) “the cluster” in line 30 represents. 22) “clusters” in line 32. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters (e.g. “multiple clusters” mentioned in line 11, “N clusters” mentioned in line 19) the “clusters” in line 32 relate to. 23) “first clusters” in line 33. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “first clusters” in line 33 belong to and where/when the “first clusters” is generated. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations: 1) " an unprocessed third target” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not there is an unprocessed first target and/or an unprocessed second target exists. 2) “the third target to be processed” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “third target to be processed” is not mentioned. 3) “each fourth target” in lines 8-9. It is indefinite because it is not clear how many “fourth target” exists. 4) “the cluster” in lines 10 and 13. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “the cluster” in line 10 relates to the “a cluster” mentioned in line 7 and whether or not “the cluster” in lines 10 and 13 relates to the “a cluster” mentioned in claim 1 line 22. 5) “marking the fourth target to be processed as processed when a fourth initial target is unprocessed” in lines 10-11. It is indefinite because it is not clear where the “a fourth initial target” comes from and what this limitation means. 6) “the azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in line 13. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in claim 1 line 29 and the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in claim 1 lines 26-27 “the azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in line 13 represents. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 3 recites the limitations: 1) “fifth targets” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not there are third target and fourth target. 3) “sixth targets” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not there are third target and fourth target. 4) “the firth target” in line 6. it is not clear which one in the “fifth targets” mentioned in line 4 is “the fifth target” in line 6. 5) “a current time” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a current time” in line 6 and the “a current time” in claim 1 line 18 are the same. 6) “a signal-to-noise ratio S _ N of the sixth target” in line 8. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear which one in the “sixth targets” mentioned in line 5 is “the sixth target” in line 8. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N” in line 8 relates to the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N of the radar echo signal” mentioned in claim 1 lines 7-8 because signal-to-noise ratio is a measurement of signal instead of “target”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 4-5 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3 because each of dependent claims 4-5 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a preset percentage value” in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a preset percentage value” in lines 1-2 is the “a preset percentage value” mentioned in claim 3 line 10. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the signal-to-noise ratio S _ N of the targets” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N” in line 5 relates to the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N of the radar echo signal” mentioned in claim 1 lines 7-8 because signal-to-noise ratio is a measurement of signal instead of “targets”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: 1) “a first target” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a first target” in line 6 is the same as the “a first target” in claim 1 line 24. 2) “a second target” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a second target” in line 6 is the same as the “a second target” in claim 1 line 24. 3) “a seventh target” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not third, fourth, fifth, and sixth target exist. 4) “updating attribute values of a seventh target to be processed” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear why “updating attribute values of a seventh target” in “determining a first target to be processed is same as a second target to be processed” as mentioned in line 6. 5) “the first target” in lines 8-9. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a first target” in line 6 and the “a first target” in claim 1 line 24 “the first target” in lines 8-9 represents. 6) “the second target” in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a second target” in line 6 and the “a second target” in claim 1 line 24 “the second target” in line 9 represents. 7) “the azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in lines 10 and 17. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in claim 1 line 29 and the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in claim 1 lines 26-27 “the azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in lines 10 and 17 represents. 8) “a first target” in line 14. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a first target” in line 14 is the same as the “a first target” in line 6 or the “a first target” in claim 1 line 24. 9) “the first target” in lines 14 and 16. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a first target” in line 6, the “a first target” in line 14, and the “a first target” in claim 1 line 24 “the first target” in lines 14 and 16 represents. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6 because dependent claim 7 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitations: 1) “each initial target” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the “each initial target” in line 3 and the “Num1 initial targets” and the “Num2 initial targets” mentioned in claim 1 lines 3 and 5. 2) “an initial target” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “an initial target” in line 4 is the same as the “each initial target” in line 3 because of claimed language “performing a processing as follows on each initial target” in line 3. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: 1) "a radar system" in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the "a radar system" in line 4 and the “radar systems” mentioned in line 1. 2) “based on a radar echo signal” in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because it is not clear the “a radar echo signal” is from the “radar systems” mentioned in line 1 or from the "a radar system" mentioned in line 4. 3) “the attribute values” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “Num1 attribute values” mentioned in line 4 and the “Num2 attribute values” mentioned in line 5 “the attribute values” in line 6 represents. 4) “the initial target” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “initial target” is not mentioned and it is not clear whether or not “the initial target” in lines 6-7 relates to the “Num1 initial targets” mentioned in line 3 and/or the “Num2 initial targets” mentioned in line 5. 5) “copy the Num1 initial targets into corresponding Num1 targets to be processed, and copy the Num2 initial targets into corresponding Num2 targets to be processed” in lines 9-10. It is indefinite because it is not clear what operation is performed in “copy the Num1 initial targets into corresponding Num1 targets” and “copy the Num2 initial targets into corresponding Num2 targets” since targets cannot be copied and transferred. 6) “Num1 +Num2 targets” in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “Num1 +Num2 targets” in line 11 relates to the “Num1 targets” and “Num2 targets” mentioned in lines 9-10. 7) “azimuth AZ” in line 12. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the “azimuth AZ” in line 12 and the “an azimuth AZ” mentioned in line 6. 8) “each second cluster” in lines 14-15. It is indefinite because it is not clear how many clusters exist in the “second cluster”. 9) “a second cluster” in line 15. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a second cluster” in line 15 is the same as the “each second cluster” in lines 14-15 because of claimed language “performing a processing as follows on each second cluster”. 10) “signal-to-noise ratio S_N of targets” in lines 15-16. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N” in line 14 relates to the “signal-to-noise ratio S_N of the radar echo signal” mentioned in line 8 because signal-to-noise ratio is a measurement of signal instead of “targets”. 11) “each first cluster” in line 17. It is indefinite because it is not clear how many clusters exist in the “first cluster”. 12) “amplitude between any two targets” in line 22-23. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “amplitude” represents. 13) “a cluster” in line 23. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters previously mentioned relates to the “a cluster” in line 23. 14) “for an y cluster” in lines 25. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters previously mentioned relates to the “an y cluster” in lines 25 and whether or not the “an y cluster” in lines 25 is the “a cluster” in line 23. 15) “each remaining cluster” in lines 25-26. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters previously mentioned relates to the “each remaining cluster” in lines 25-26. 16) “azimuth AZ” in line 27. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “azimuth AZ” in line 27 relates to the “an azimuth AZ” mentioned in line 6 or the “azimuth AZ” mentioned in line 12. 17) “a first target” in line 29. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a first target” in line 29 is the same as the “a first target” in line 26. 18) “the first target” in line 30. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a first target” in line 26 and in line 29 “the first target” in line 30 represents. 19) “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in line 31. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in line 31 is the same as the “an azimuth difference threshold ΔAZ” in lines 28-29. 20) “the first target” in lines 31-32. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a first target” in line 26 and in line 29 “the first target” in lines 31-32 represents. 21) “the cluster” in line 32. It is indefinite because it is not clear which cluster previously mentioned (e.g. “each first cluster” mentioned in line 17, “each cluster among the N clusters” mentioned in lines21-22, “a cluster” mentioned in line 23, “for an y cluster” mentioned in line 25, “each remaining cluster” mentioned in lines 25-26) “the cluster” in line 32 represents. 22) “clusters” in line 34. It is indefinite because it is not clear which clusters (e.g. “multiple clusters” mentioned in line 12, “N clusters” mentioned in line 21) the “clusters” in line 34 relate to. 23) “first clusters” in line 36. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “first clusters” in line 36 belong to and where/when the “first clusters” is generated. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9, 11-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 9, 11-16 disclose statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and non-statutory subject matter is not eligible for patent protection.
Claims 9, 11-16 recites “A storage medium”, which covers non-transitory media and transitory propagating signals. The transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter and not eligible for patent protection. The claims do not limit the medium to the statutory embodiments. The BRI of “a storage medium” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating signal per se. When the BRI of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category). Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable storage medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). So claims 9, 11-16 fail step 1 of the eligibility analysis for “the four categories of statutory subject matter”, that is claims 9, 11-16 failure to fall within a statutory class.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648