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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 12-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY on 11/11/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 and 06/27/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 12,14-17 and 19-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12,14-17 and 19-21 recite instances of “the determined radar pulse pattern” where each instance should recite “the superimposed determined radar pulse pattern” for consistency.
Claim 20 includes a typo of “thje” in the limitation, “and a device, including a control unit, for thje rail vehicle”. This should recite “the”.
Claims 12 and 21 recite the limitation, “based an a radar detection”. This limitation should recite “based on a radar detection”.
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 12-21 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 recites the limitation "the radar sensor" in "and detecting an approaching object when a superimposed determined radar pulse pattern is received in a radar detection with the radar sensor in normal mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 12 introduces multiple radar sensors. The same rejection applies to claims 16-17 and 21.
The term “in normal operation” in claims 12 and 19-21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal operation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear whether “in normal operation” refers to the “normal mode” or some other operation.
Claims 15-17 recite the limitation “cooperation mode”. It is unclear what is meant by “cooperation mode” as it is not a term of art. Referring back to the disclosure, the disclosure states “Cooperation mode can be a passive operating mode” and further states, “However, in cooperation mode, the radar sensor is operated in such a way that it outputs a determined radar pulse pattern.”. Therefore, it is unclear what defines the scope of “cooperation mode”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation, “wherein a signal is given” in “wherein a signal is given when an approaching object is detected and there is a risk of collision”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “a signal is given”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "can be" in “at least two radar sensors which can be arranged at two vehicle ends of a rail vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
All claims dependent on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to point out that method claims 12 and 18 include the contingent limitations of “and detecting an approaching object when a superimposed determined radar pulse pattern is received in a radar detection with the radar sensor in normal mode” (claim 12) and “wherein a signal is given when an approaching object is detected and there is a risk of collision” (claim 18). Regarding claim 12, the feature of “detecting an approaching object” is contingent on the step of “when a superimposed determined radar pulse pattern is received in a radar detection with the radar sensor in normal mode”. Regarding claim 18, the feature of “a signal is given” is contingent on the step of “when an approaching object is detected and there is a risk of collision”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of these method claims, the recited features which are contingent do not need to be performed to fulfill the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 12 and 18. Therefore, this method claim is being interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation where steps of “detecting an approaching object” (for claim 12) and “a signal is given” (for claim 18) are performed. (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Continent Limitations).
For purposes of examination, a prior art rejection for these claims has been provided below.
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) 12-14,16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farhoud et al. (US 10656242 B2), hereinafter Farhoud.
Regarding claim 12, Farhoud discloses
A method for operating a rail vehicle with radar sensors arranged at both vehicle ends (see Fig. 7 vehicle 100 has radar sensors arranged on both vehicle ends, further see Col. 6, lines 22-28, “The vehicles are each equipped with front radar sensors 106 and rear radar sensors 107, and emit radar beams or radar signals at the front and rear in the form of output signals. There are two radar sensors 106 disposed at the front corners of the vehicle for the front system, and two other radar sensors 107 disposed at the rear corners of the vehicle for the rear system.”; NOTE: “for operating a rail vehicle” is simply intended use where the method can be implemented on a vehicle which is configured in a way to carry out the method steps), the method comprising the following steps:
carrying out an object detection of upcoming obstacles and objects by operating a radar sensor in a direction of travel in normal mode, in which an obstacle detection of approaching objects ahead in a roadway is carried out based an a radar detection (see Col. 3, lines 35-53, “FIG. 2 shows a schematic depiction of a radar sensor 10, having a transmitting antenna 11 and two receiving antennas 12, 13. The reflected, received signal 14, 15 is mixed in the receivers 17 with the outgoing signal 16 of the transmitter 18, and transformed in terms of the frequency range. This signal 21 is mixed in an HF element 19 and transferred to the digital signal processor 20 for further evaluation. The digital signal processor 20 transmits control signals 22 for controlling the radar sensor to the HF element. The radar sensor 10 thus has a signal generating device thereby, which includes the transmitter 16, the HF element 19 and the signal processor 20. The radar sensor also includes a signal receiving device thereby, which includes the receiver 17, the HF element 19 and the signal processor 20. The received signal 14, 15 represents a superimposing of reflections of relevant targets thereby, but also reflections of undesired targets, which are also referred to in radar technology as clutter, so-called disruption echoes caused by reflections of the ground, shoulder construction and rain.”); and
detecting an approaching object when a superimposed determined radar pulse pattern is received in a radar detection with the radar sensor in normal mode (col. 3, lines 49-57, “The received signal 14, 15 represents a superimposing of reflections of relevant targets thereby, but also reflections of undesired targets, which are also referred to in radar technology as clutter, so-called disruption echoes caused by reflections of the ground, shoulder construction and rain. The OS-CFAR method (Ordered Statistic-Constant False Alarm Rate) is used for detecting the relevant target. After detection, there is a base frequency signal for a relevant target, the frequency of which is obtained from the distance to the target and its relative speed.”) wherein the determined radar pulse pattern corresponds to a radar pulse pattern that deviates from a radar transmission signal in normal operation (Col. 4, lines 9-29, “FIGS. 3 and 4 show a signal curve 30 with a disruption. FIG. 3 shows an up-chirp in the frequency/time diagram, which is intersected by a CW disrupter. The CW disrupter results in a pulse-like increase 31 in the amplitude of the time signal in the region of the intersection of both signals, see FIG. 4. This increase 31, which can also extend over numerous measurement points, causes a broadband increase in the noise in the frequency range.”).
Regarding claim 13, Farhoud further discloses
The method according to claim 12, wherein a radar signal is transmitted in normal mode in accordance with an FMCW operation with a frequency ramp and a correspondingly received radar signal is evaluated in order to ascertain a distance, a speed, and a direction of movement of objects present in the detection range (see Col. 3, lines 49-62, “The received signal 14, 15 represents a superimposing of reflections of relevant targets thereby, but also reflections of undesired targets, which are also referred to in radar technology as clutter, so-called disruption echoes caused by reflections of the ground, shoulder construction and rain. The OS-CFAR method (Ordered Statistic-Constant False Alarm Rate) is used for detecting the relevant target. After detection, there is a base frequency signal for a relevant target, the frequency of which is obtained from the distance to the target and its relative speed. With a Doppler-chirp, the frequency is only dependent on the relative speed. The phase difference between the spectral components in the base band between two respective ramps is likewise obtained from the distance to and the relative speed of the relevant target.”, where two respective ramps indicates an FMCW operation where the ramp corresponds to distance and relative speed of the relevant targets).
Regarding claim 14, Farhoud further discloses
The method according to claim 12, wherein the determined radar pulse pattern corresponds to a periodic radar signal of constant frequency (see Fig. 1, where the determined radar pulse pattern corresponds to a periodic radar signal of constant frequency, further see Col. 3, lines 14-34, “FIG. 1 shows a diagram 1 illustrating an outgoing signal composed of a series of individual signals. The diagram shows the frequency f(t) of the outgoing signal as a function of time t. The individual signals f.sub.0.sup.A, f.sub.0.sup.B, f.sub.0.sup.C, f.sub.1.sup.A, f.sub.1.sup.B, f.sub.1.sup.C, etc. form a series that is emitted as an outgoing signal. If the radar sensor is operated with the so-called LFMSK transmission method (Linear Frequency Modulated Shift Keying), three nested individual signals A, B, C are emitted. A constant frequency is emitted thereby for a time period of ca. 25 μs (burst) in each case, which is then linearly modified for each of the three individual signals. It can be seen thereby that the frequencies of the signals f.sub.0.sup.A, f.sub.0.sup.B, f.sub.0.sup.C increase, wherein the frequencies again increase in the next series of signals f.sub.1.sup.A, f.sub.1.sup.B, f.sub.1.sup.C, wherein the frequency f.sub.1.sup.A is greater than the frequency f.sub.0.sup.A.”).
Regarding claim 16, Farhoud further discloses
The method according to claim 12, wherein the determined radar pulse pattern corresponds to a radar signal with variable period and/or variable frequency, wherein the variable period and/or the variable frequency is set according to a measurement of distance and/or speed and/or direction of travel of an object present in a detection range by the radar sensor operating in cooperation mode (see Col. 4, lines 9-29, “FIGS. 3 and 4 show a signal curve 30 with a disruption. FIG. 3 shows an up-chirp in the frequency/time diagram, which is intersected by a CW disrupter. The CW disrupter results in a pulse-like increase 31 in the amplitude of the time signal in the region of the intersection of both signals, see FIG. 4. This increase 31, which can also extend over numerous measurement points, causes a broadband increase in the noise in the frequency range. Reflections from relevant targets are masked as a result, and can no longer be detected in the series…The CW disruption is an example of a disruption thereby. Other disruptions can also occur. More complex disruptions may be caused, for example, by LFMCW (Linear Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave) and FCSM (Fast Chirp Sequence Modulation). With these disruptions, numerous intersections occur in the frequency curve between the outgoing signal of the victim and the disrupting signal. As a result, disruptions in the form of an amplitude increase may be received in numerous time windows, which increase the noise level such that a detection of relevant targets without correcting the receive signal becomes difficult.”).
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 21, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhoud et al. (US 10656242 B2) in view of KOK et al. (DE 102019008530 A1), hereinafter KOK, where citations are corresponding to provided English translation copy.
Regarding claim 15, Farhoud discloses [Note: what Farhoud fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 12,
KOK discloses,
wherein the determined radar pulse pattern is transmitted by a further radar sensor in a cooperation mode at a rear vehicle end of the rail vehicle with respect to the direction of travel (see paragraph 0018, “Two vehicles 2, each equipped with a radar system 3, are shown, with the first vehicle 2.1 being in motion and its radar system 3.1 operating in the first radar mode. The second vehicle 2.2 is located in the direction of travel F of the first vehicle 2.1 in front of the first vehicle 2.1 . The vehicle 2.2 travels slowly or is completely stationary, with its radar 3.2 operating in a second operating mode. The part of the radar 3.2 installed at the rear of the vehicle 2.2 is operated as a transponder 9 and emits microwaves 5 into the environment. These are received and evaluated by vehicle 2.1 using radar 3.1. This allows the radar 3.1 of vehicle 2.1 to have the information that another vehicle 2.2 is further ahead on its route, despite the stationary or slow-moving, and therefore difficult to detect, vehicle 2.2.”, where the transponder 9 emits the microwaves 5 according to a trigger of an approaching target which switches the mode to a secondary mode (i.e. transponder emitting microwaves 5)).
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 KOK into the invention of Farhoud. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems mounted on vehicles and used for collision avoidance. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to notify other vehicles of objects ahead and thereby create a more efficient collision avoidance system.
Regarding claim 18, Farhoud discloses [Note: what Farhoud fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 12,
KOK discloses,
wherein a signal is given when an approaching object is detected and there is a risk of collision (see paragraph 0021, “Trigger criterion 4 includes at least one of the following criteria: The vehicle 2.2 is moving at a speed below a specified limit speed or is stationary; the vehicle's hazard warning lights are activated; an SOS warning system provides a warning signal; and/or an emergency or assistance system intervenes. The speed limit is adjusted to the driving situation”).
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 KOK into the invention of Farhoud. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems mounted on vehicles and used for collision avoidance. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order warn users and vehicles of objects ahead and thereby create a more efficient collision avoidance system.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be potentially allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights