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
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “wherein the the circuitry is further configured to detect a second abnormality” which is suggested to be amended to “wherein the resetting the module(s)” which is suggested to be amended to “resetting the modules”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiki (US 2014/0253363 A1 “KAJIKI”), in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0196829 A1 “CHEN”).
Regarding claim 1, KAJIKI discloses (Examiner’s note: What KIJIKI does not disclose is ) an infrastructure radio wave sensor (a moving object detecting apparatus 1 is connected to a radar 2 through the radar interface unit 11 [0021 & FIG. 1]); (the radar 2 may be installed on a post provided by the side of a road where a vehicle travels [0022]) comprising:
circuitry (control unit 14 [0025]) configured to, based on reflected waves that are radio waves emitted to a first object that is constantly present (a stationary object that is present within the detection range of the radar 2 [0030]); (a support 301, such as traffic guide map, is installed across a road 300 [0032]) and a second object different from the first object (a travelling vehicle [0036]) and that are reflected from the first object and the second object (the radar 2 detects an object that reflects a radar wave using a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method [0022]), generate first reflected wave data representing information including a signal level of the reflected waves (generates measurement data, the reception level signal of the measurement data [0032])
detect the second object based on reference data representing information including a position of the first object and the first reflected wave data (the measurement data output from a radar includes a reception level signal that represents the strength of a radar wave reflected by an object and received by the radar, along with a distance from the radar to the object for each object reflecting the radar wave [0016]); (a threshold ThdA of the reception level signal that a vehicle detecting unit 22 uses to detect a travelling vehicle, and to set as a value corresponding to an upper limit value of the strength of the reception level signal when the travelling vehicle to be detected is not present [0036])
detect a first abnormality that is an abnormality in a detection result obtained by the circuitry, and in a case where the first abnormality is detected, control execution of a recovery process to recover from the first abnormality, when there is a measurement value whose reception level signal is greater than or equal to the threshold ThdB and whose absolute value of the moving velocity is less than or equal to the threshold ThdV1, the background data updating unit may add a given value in the range of 0 to 1 to data used to update an adjacent distance corresponding to the measurement value [0061]); (the background data updating unit may represent in the background data position variation of the stationary object caused by effects such as the measurement error of the radar [0061])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches updating, through multiple iterations, a radar reference map used for vehicle localization based on radar detections. The flow chart includes multiple runs 1702 (e.g., run 1 to run n where n can be any integer greater than 1), with each run being an iteration through an environment represented by a radar reference map [0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would add or remove attributes as they are detected or disappear, and to remove any spurious noise that may be present in the radar reference map, as recognized by CHEN. In addition, both of the prior art references, KAJIKI and CHEN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection using radar.
Regarding claim 9, KAJIKI/ CHEN discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a memory configured to, in a case where the circuitry detects an abnormality including at least one of the first abnormality or the second abnormality, record abnormality information regarding the abnormality, wherein the memory is configured to record the abnormality information including a method of recovery in a case where recovery from the abnormality is performed by the circuitry (the storage unit 12 includes, for example, a readable/writable semiconductor memory circuit and a read-only semiconductor memory circuit, and is used to detect a vehicle that travels within the detection range of the radar 2 and stores a computer program that runs on the control unit 14 [KAJIKI 0026]); (the background data updating unit may represent in the background data position variation of the stationary object caused by effects such as the measurement error of the radar [0061]).
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and further in view of Lohmeier et al. (US 2009/0243912 A1 “LOHMEIER”).
Regarding claim 2, KAJIKI/ CHEN discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOHMEIER teaches that once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists (e.g. the system does not generate any new missed alert signals or the system generates one or more detection signals which indicate that the system is working), then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire (i.e. a determination is made that system is no longer blocked). However, the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of LOHMEIER, because doing so would monitor and continuously improve accuracy of the system for use in various environmental conditions, as recognized by LOHMEIER. In addition, both of the prior art references, KAJIKI and LOHMEIER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detections in dynamic environment based on sensor data.
Regarding claim 3, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 2, wherein: the circuitry is further configured to determine, in the second determination process, whether the recovery from the first abnormality has succeeded or not, based on a detection result before the reference data is updated and a detection result after the reference data is updated (once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists (e.g. the system does not generate any new missed alert signals or the system generates one or more detection signals which indicate that the system is working), then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire (i.e. a determination is made that system is no longer blocked). However, the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [LOHMEIER 0090], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 2, wherein: the circuitry is further configured to execute a first determination process of determining whether the recovery from the first abnormality has failed or not, based on third reflected wave data newly generated by the circuitry since execution of the recovery process, and execute the second determination process in a case where it is determined in the first determination process that the recovery from the first abnormality has not failed (once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists (e.g. the system does not generate any new missed alert signals or the system generates one or more detection signals which indicate that the system is working), then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire (i.e. a determination is made that system is no longer blocked). However, the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [LOHMEIER 0090], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 2, further comprising: wherein the circuitry is further configured to, in a case where the circuitry determines that the recovery from the abnormality has failed, notify a user that the recovery from the abnormality has failed (the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [LOHMEIER 0090], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 11, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein: the circuitry is configured to notify the user of an occurrence of the first abnormality, notify the user that a recovery operation from the first abnormality is in progress during execution of the second determination process, and notify the user that the recovery from the first abnormality has failed in a case where it is determined in the first determination process that the recovery from the first abnormality has failed or in a case where it is determined in the second determination process that the recovery from the first abnormality has failed (once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists (e.g. the system does not generate any new missed alert signals or the system generates one or more detection signals which indicate that the system is working), then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire (i.e. a determination is made that system is no longer blocked). However, the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [LOHMEIER 0090], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 12, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein: the circuitry is configured to notify the user of a normal state in a case where it is determined in the second determination process that the recovery from the first abnormality has succeeded (once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists (e.g. the system does not generate any new missed alert signals or the system generates one or more detection signals which indicate that the system is working), then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire (i.e. a determination is made that system is no longer blocked). However, the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [LOHMEIER 0090], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 14, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 3, wherein: the circuitry is configured to execute a first determination process of determining whether the recovery from the first abnormality has failed or not, based on third reflected wave data newly generated by the circuitry since execution of the recovery process, and execute the second determination process in a case where it is determined in the first determination process that the recovery from the first abnormality has not failed (once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists (e.g. the system does not generate any new missed alert signals or the system generates one or more detection signals which indicate that the system is working), then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire (i.e. a determination is made that system is no longer blocked). However, the system continues to monitor for blockage and if the system continues to look like a blockage condition exists, then blockage alert signal does not expire [LOHMEIER 0090], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 20, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 2, further comprising: a memory configured to, in a case where the circuitry detects an abnormality including at least one of the first abnormality or the second abnormality, record abnormality information regarding the abnormality, wherein the memory is configured to record the abnormality information including a method of recovery in a case where recovery from the abnormality is performed by the memory (the storage unit 12 includes, for example, a readable/writable semiconductor memory circuit and a read-only semiconductor memory circuit, and is used to detect a vehicle that travels within the detection range of the radar 2 and stores a computer program that runs on the control unit 14 [KAJIKI 0026]); (when there is a measurement value whose reception level signal is greater than or equal to the threshold ThdB and whose absolute value of the moving velocity is less than or equal to the threshold ThdV1, the background data updating unit may add a given value in the range of 0 to 1 to data used to update an adjacent distance corresponding to the measurement value [KAJIKI 0061]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and LOHMEIER, and further in view of Heilmann et al. (US 2012/0032838 A1 “HEILMANN”).
Regarding claim 5, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 4,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HEILMANN teaches that if parameter Q stays for a long time below a particular threshold value, or falls below such a threshold value after suitable temporal filtering, detection device 32 can output a signal that indicates the blinding of the locating device [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of HEILMANN, because doing so would determine a blinding or limitation of the function of the radar locating device as quickly as possible, thereby improving safety and efficiency of the device, as recognized by HEILMANN. In addition, both of the prior art references, KAJIKI and HEILMANN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection using radar system.
Claim(s) 6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and further in view of Gehrels et al. (US 2015/0241553 A1 “GEHRELS”).
Regarding claim 6, KAJIKI/ CHEN discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GEHRELS teaches that each sensor module may include a trigger supplied with a signal from irregularity determining circuitry to “measure” a parameter and, upon going beyond one or more thresholds, provide a persistent signal indicative of the occurrence of an irregularity in that parameter until a reset signal is applied to the module [0055]. The inner safety monitor 3 may send a reset signal via all of the reset lines 22 to reset all of the triggers in all of the sensors 5 a-e [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of GEHRELS, because doing so would ensure that components of a system are functioning properly and to provide quick notification to other sub-systems or components when an irregularity in functioning arises, as recognized by GEHRELS. In addition, both of the prior art references, KAJIKI and GEHRELS, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radar data processing system.
Regarding claim 13, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ GEHRELS discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 6, the circuitry is further configured to notify a user of an occurrence of the second abnormality, wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the user that the partial reset process is in progress during execution of the partial reset process (each sensor module may include a trigger supplied with a signal from irregularity determining circuitry to “measure” a parameter and, upon going beyond one or more thresholds, provide a persistent signal indicative of the occurrence of an irregularity in that parameter until a reset signal is applied to the module [GEHRELS 0055], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and GEHRELS, and further in view of Winger et al. (US 2013/0254586 A1 “WINGER”).
Regarding claim 7, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ GEHRELS discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 6, wherein: the circuitry is further configured to execute an entire reset process of resetting the entire infrastructure radio wave sensor (the inner safety monitor 3 may send a reset signal via all of the reset lines 22 to reset all of the triggers in all of the sensors 5 a-e [GEHRELS 0060], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WINGER teaches that assume the fault persists. The fault recovery module 138 determines that the camera lens sub-unit 148 is still being unresponsive. The fault recovery module 138 then informs the user of a fault and requests that the user approve a full device reset [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of WINGER, because doing so would allow the system to be recovered and limit system usage as appropriate, as recognized by WINGER. In addition, both of the prior art references, KAJIKI and WINGER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, fault recovery for system/ subsystems.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and GEHRELS, and further in view of Jansen (US 2015/0153445 A1 “JANSEN”).
Regarding claim 8, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ GEHRELS discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 6, wherein: the plurality of modules include a transmission circuit configured to transmit the radio waves, a reception circuit configured to receive the reflected waves (the radar 2 includes a transmission antenna and a reception antenna, and the direction of each antenna is adjusted to transmit the radar wave toward a moving vehicle on the road and receive the radar wave reflected by the vehicle [KAJIKI 0023]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JANSEN teaches operating each configurable IC using a common Local Oscillator signal, a common clock signal, and a common timing signal for determining at least the start of a common sampling window [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of JANSEN, because doing so would provide enhanced capability for signal synchronization, as recognized by JANSEN. In addition, both of the prior art references, KAJIKI and JANSEN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radar system operation.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and LOHMEIER, and further in view of GEHRELS.
Regarding claim 15, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 2,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GEHRELS teaches that each sensor module may include a trigger supplied with a signal from irregularity determining circuitry to “measure” a parameter and, upon going beyond one or more thresholds, provide a persistent signal indicative of the occurrence of an irregularity in that parameter until a reset signal is applied to the module [0055]. The inner safety monitor 3 may send a reset signal via all of the reset lines 22 to reset all of the triggers in all of the sensors 5 a-e [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of GEHRELS, because doing so would ensure that components of a system are functioning properly and to provide quick notification to other sub-systems or components when an irregularity in functioning arises, as recognized by GEHRELS.
Regarding claim 16, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GEHRELS teaches that each sensor module may include a trigger supplied with a signal from irregularity determining circuitry to “measure” a parameter and, upon going beyond one or more thresholds, provide a persistent signal indicative of the occurrence of an irregularity in that parameter until a reset signal is applied to the module [0055]. The inner safety monitor 3 may send a reset signal via all of the reset lines 22 to reset all of the triggers in all of the sensors 5 a-e [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of GEHRELS, because doing so would ensure that components of a system are functioning properly and to provide quick notification to other sub-systems or components when an irregularity in functioning arises, as recognized by GEHRELS.
Regarding claim 17, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 4,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GEHRELS teaches that each sensor module may include a trigger supplied with a signal from irregularity determining circuitry to “measure” a parameter and, upon going beyond one or more thresholds, provide a persistent signal indicative of the occurrence of an irregularity in that parameter until a reset signal is applied to the module [0055]. The inner safety monitor 3 may send a reset signal via all of the reset lines 22 to reset all of the triggers in all of the sensors 5 a-e [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of GEHRELS, because doing so would ensure that components of a system are functioning properly and to provide quick notification to other sub-systems or components when an irregularity in functioning arises, as recognized by GEHRELS.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and LOHMEIER, and HEILMANN, and further in view of GEHRELS.
Regarding claim 18, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ LOHMEIER/ HEILMANN discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 5,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GEHRELS teaches that each sensor module may include a trigger supplied with a signal from irregularity determining circuitry to “measure” a parameter and, upon going beyond one or more thresholds, provide a persistent signal indicative of the occurrence of an irregularity in that parameter until a reset signal is applied to the module [0055]. The inner safety monitor 3 may send a reset signal via all of the reset lines 22 to reset all of the triggers in all of the sensors 5 a-e [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of GEHRELS, because doing so would ensure that components of a system are functioning properly and to provide quick notification to other sub-systems or components when an irregularity in functioning arises, as recognized by GEHRELS.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJIKI, in view of CHEN, and GEHRELS, and WINGER, and further in view of JANSEN.
Regarding claim 19, KAJIKI/ CHEN/ GEHRELS/ WINGER discloses the infrastructure radio wave sensor according to claim 7, wherein: the plurality of modules include a transmission circuit configured to transmit the radio waves, a reception circuit configured to receive the reflected waves (the radar 2 includes a transmission antenna and a reception antenna, and the direction of each antenna is adjusted to transmit the radar wave toward a moving vehicle on the road and receive the radar wave reflected by the vehicle [KAJIKI 0023]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JANSEN teaches operating each configurable IC using a common Local Oscillator signal, a common clock signal, and a common timing signal for determining at least the start of a common sampling window [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KAJIKI to include the teachings of JANSEN, because doing so would provide enhanced capability for signal synchronization, as recognized by JANSEN.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lycett (US 2009/0052737 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of the thresholding step that comprises comparing each of the normalised data elements to at least first and second thresholds, wherein the first threshold is greater than the second threshold. The use of one or more confirmation scans in combination with the thresholding step is also described. A radar system is also described that uses the method to detect foreign object debris on a surface such as an airport runway.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 J 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights