DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on April 15, 2025, claim 1-7 have been examined this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 9/24/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shtrom (US 2020/0319328 A1) in view of Hedgewick (US 3971623 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Shtrom teaches an ID tag for arranging in a row a plurality of elements selected from [0032 for the pattern of the set of radar reflectors may be one dimensional e.g., the set of radar reflectors may be arranged along a line, such as in a linear array]:
and a fourth element having no peak of the reflection intensity in the first direction and the second direction [0034 for absence of a radar reflector or a null in each of regions].
Shtrom fails to explicitly teach a first element having a peak of a reflection intensity in a first direction and a second direction; a second element having the peak of the reflection intensity in the first direction and having no peak of the reflection intensity in the second direction; a third element having the peak of the reflection intensity in the second direction and having no peak of the reflection intensity in the first direction.
Hedgewick has daytime and nighttime marker elements may be positioned in the chamber so as to be visible through the outer wall of the chamber (abstract) and teaches a first element having a peak of a reflection intensity in a first direction and a second direction [col 7, lines 50-60 for opposite sides of the main rib for reflecting light in opposite directions];
a second element having the peak of the reflection intensity in the first direction and having no peak of the reflection intensity in the second direction [col 7, lines 50-60 for reflector members can be omitted where it is necessary to reflect light];
a third element having the peak of the reflection intensity in the second direction and having no peak of the reflection intensity in the first direction [col 7, lines 50-60 for reflector members can be omitted where it is necessary to reflect light].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the reflections calculations as taught by Hedgewick for the purpose to increase the nighttime reflectivity (Hedgewick, col 7, lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 6 Shtrom fails to explicitly teach the row for arranging the plurality of elements coincides a line projecting the first direction on a surface for arranging the plurality of elements, and a line projecting the second direction on the surface for arranging the plurality of elements.
Hedgewick has daytime and nighttime marker elements may be positioned in the chamber so as to be visible through the outer wall of the chamber (abstract) and teaches the row for arranging the plurality of elements coincides a line projecting the first direction on a surface for arranging the plurality of elements [col 12, lines 1-10 for whichh fore and aft axis extends parallel to the direction of travel of vehicles when the pavement marker],
and a line projecting the second direction on the surface for arranging the plurality of elements [col 12, lines 20-25 for extend outwardly in opposite directions from the upper edge of the main rib].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the reflections calculations as taught by Hedgewick for the purpose of increasing the nighttime reflectivity (Hedgewick, col 7, lines 55-60).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shtrom (US 2020/0319328 A1) in view of Hedgewick (US 3971623 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nolan (SIGCOMM, 2021).
Regarding Claim 2, Shtrom teaches the plurality of the elements selected are arranged in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the plurality of the elements are arranged [0032 for two dimensional e.g., the set of radar reflectors may be arranged in a plane].
Shtrom fails to explicitly teach in the same order as an order in which the plurality of elements are arranged.
Nolan has radar functionality is limited to identifying the positions of reflectors (abstract) and teaches in the same order as an order in which the plurality of elements are arranged [page 174, left column, second paragraph for assembled tag, which has 5 vertical stacks and encodes 4bits“1111ž. Each stack (order) has 32 PSVAAs. The stacks can be reconfigured to encode different bit sequences].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the arrangement calculations as taught by Nolan for the purpose to reduce interference and improve SNR (Nolan, page 174, left column, second paragraph).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shtrom (US 2020/0319328 A1) in view of Hedgewick (US 3971623 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Michelson (US 4990918 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Shtrom fails to explicitly teach the first element is formed by arranging two reflection members having a triangular pyramid shape.
Hedgewick has daytime and nighttime marker elements may be positioned in the chamber so as to be visible through the outer wall of the chamber (abstract) and teaches the first element is formed by arranging two reflection members having a triangular pyramid shape [col 7, lines 50-60 for opposite sides of the main rib for reflecting light].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the reflections calculations as taught by Hedgewick for the purpose of increasing the nighttime reflectivity (Hedgewick, col 7, lines 55-60).
Shtrom fails to explicitly teach in which at least one hypotenuse is different from another hypotenuse in length, with point symmetry.
Michelson has radar reflector provides an enhanced radar cross section pattern (abstract) and teaches in which at least one hypotenuse is different from another hypotenuse in length, with point symmetry [col 3, lines 30-40 for common vertex such that the reflector is symmetrical about the center line, the center line being shorter than the two straight sides (different lengths)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the symmetry as taught by Michelson for the purpose to enhance radar detection (Michelson, col 3, lines 20-25).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shtrom (US 2020/0319328 A1) in view of Hedgewick (US 3971623 A) and Michelson (US 4990918 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Seah et al (US 8576113 A).
Regarding Claim 4 Shtrom fails to explicitly teach the second element and the third element are each formed of a reflection member having a triangular pyramid shape in which at least one hypotenuse is different from another hypotenuse in length,.
Michelson has radar reflector provides an enhanced radar cross section pattern (abstract) and teaches the second element and the third element are each formed of a reflection member having a triangular pyramid shape in which at least one hypotenuse is different from another hypotenuse in length [col 4, lines 1-10 for a trihedral corner reflection and figure 4].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the symmetry as taught by Michelson for the purpose to enhance radar detection (Michelson, col 3, lines 20-25).
Shtrom fails to explicitly teach and a reflection member having a planar shape.
Seah has a runway identification system (abstract) and teaches and a reflection member having a planar shape [col 7, lines 65-67 for using planar reflectors].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the planar design as taught by Seah for the purpose t to receive a code of light provided by optical reflectors. (Seah, col 7, lines 55-62).
Regarding Claim 5 Shtrom fails to explicitly teach the fourth element is formed of a reflection member having a planar shape.
Seah has a runway identification system (abstract) and teaches the fourth element is formed of a reflection member having a planar shape [col 7, lines 65-67 for using planar reflectors].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the planar design as taught by Seah for the purpose t to receive a code of light provided by optical reflectors. (Seah, col 7, lines 55-62).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shtrom (US 2020/0319328 A1) in view of Hedgewick (US 3971623 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Seah et al (US 8576113 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Shtrom teaches a detecting system comprising: the ID tag [0032 for the pattern of the set of radar reflectors may be one dimensional e.g., the set of radar reflectors may be arranged along a line, such as in a linear array];
a radar device which transmits a transmission radio wave to the ID tag in a direction opposite to the first direction and a direction opposite to the second direction [0029 for having an electronic device that both transmits and receives signals],
and acquires a first reception radio wave by reflecting the transmission radio wave transmitted in the first direction by the ID tag [0029 for having a receiver and receive antennas],
and a detecting device which detects a first ID from a relationship between a distance and a reflection intensity in the first reception radio wave [0045 for given peak (intensityis significant based on the calculated statistical metrics at different ranges].
Shtrom fails to explicitly teach a second reception radio wave by reflecting the transmission radio wave transmitted in the second direction by the ID tag; and detects a second ID from a relationship between a distance and a reflection intensity in the second reception radio wave.
Seah has a runway identification system (abstract) and teaches a second reception radio wave by reflecting the transmission radio wave transmitted in the second direction by the ID tag [col 5, lines 45-55 for reflectors 290 is possible as aircraft approaches runway 200. Set of reflectors 280 provides a code of “17' associated with 170 degree runway heading for runway];
and detects a second ID from a relationship between a distance and a reflection intensity in the second reception radio wave [col 8, lines 20-40 for determining the energy returned to the beam, to get the bit code and using the range].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the RFID tags techniques, as disclosed by Shtrom, further including the planar design as taught by Seah for the purpose t to receive a code of light provided by optical reflectors. (Seah, col 7, lines 55-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weissman et al (US 2020/0025575 A1) a method for determining a first localization solution associated with a location of the vehicle in a navigable environment using a radar transceiver of the navigation system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights