DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of June 18, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 9 and 10 stand CANCELLED.
It is further noted that claims 11-22 are NEWLY-ADDED.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The drawings of June 18, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of June 18, 2024 has been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Objection to the Specification
The text of 37 CFR 1.71(a) is as follows:
“(a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” (Bold added).
The specification is hereby objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) in that certain terms are unclear in context. Throughout the specification, the uses of “S/N ratio” and of “S/N ratios” are unclear in that “S/N” is not defined in the text of the specification. For example, if “S/N ratio” is intended to mean signal-to-noise ratio, then, at least, the first mention of the term should define the term for clarity: “signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio).” Further, throughout the specification, the uses of the terms “feature” and “feature information” are unclear as to what the term encompasses and as to what the feature pertains. For example, are these features, such as, length, width, and so on, of a radar target? Please note that in making corrections of these items, no new matter may be entered into the specification.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-8 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In each of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11-14, 20, and 21, the uses of the term, “feature information” are indefinite and unclear in context as to what the term encompasses and as to what the feature pertains. For example, are these features, such as, length, width, and so on of a radar target?
In independent claim 1, the use of “S/N ratio” is indefinite and unclear as to what the ratio is composed of. For example, is signal-to-noise ratio meant?
In independent claim 21, the use of “S/N ratio” is indefinite and unclear as to what the ratio is composed of. For example, is signal-to-noise ratio meant?
In independent claim 1, it is unclear if the term, “radio wave sensor” is positively recited as part of the overall claimed “apparatus.”
In independent claim 21, it is unclear if the term, “radio wave sensor” is positively recited as part of the overall claimed “system.”
On line 3 of dependent claim 3, the use of the word, “can” in the verb phrase, “can detect” makes the verb phrase indefinite and unclear in context, being potential language.
Overall, dependent claim 8 is unclear as to how the “moving body” is a “flying object” in that the apparatus is used “on a road” (claim 1, line 4).
Overall, dependent claim 20 is unclear as to how the “moving body” is a “flying object” in that the apparatus is used “on a road” (claim 1, line 4).
In claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 21, and 22, it is unclear what is meant in context by the term, “radio wave sensor.” Is this merely a radio receiver? Is this a radar? It is noted that the term, “radar” is not present in the specification, in the originally-filed claims, or in the claims with the preliminary amendment.
Each of dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 22 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 21.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-8, 11-20, and 22 would be 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.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita et al (‘769) is of general interest for being the closest piece of examiner-cited prior art to the claimed invention, noting, for example, Figure 1; the “center device 30”; the “traffic information manager 31”; the radio units in Figure 1; the vehicle-mounted units”; and, paragraph [0012] (especially noting “sending fault information” on line 8 of that paragraph.
Park et al (‘479) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a vehicle radar inspection.
Nagy (‘064) is of general interest for the disclosure related to calculating of a target location; the radar sensor; the reflected radar beam; and, the evaluation unit.
Schweitzer et al (‘950) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a traffic monitoring system, especially noting the mounting structure.
Orlowski et al (‘954) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a microwave vehicle detector, especially noting the “TROUBLE DISPLAY” in the drawings and the related disclosure of that feature.
Lion et al (‘346) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a system finding, “at least one vehicular traffic check parameter.”
Hasselbring (‘390) is of general interest for the disclosure related to finding features of vehicles for classification of the vehicles.
Wangler et al (‘491) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a multi-lane vehicle sensor.
Nakamura et al (‘641) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a “location detector”; a “signal analyzer”; and, a “central processor 180.”
Matsui et al (‘523) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a roadside monitoring device.
Weil et al (‘885) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a “traffic incident detection system (10),” especially noting the “traffic anomaly detection algorithm.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights