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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “at least 3 receivers” should be rewritten as “at least three receivers” or the like to avoid potential confusion with reference numbers. Claims should generally avoid using Arabic numerals wherever feasible in reference to claimed subject matter. Claim 2 is likewise rejected.
The recitation “the detection board is adapted to…executing processes to analyse the data” should read “the detection board is adapted to…execute processes to analyse the data” or the like in order to maintain grammatical consistency.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A system for contactless detection and provision on an occupancy status parking lots in at least one vehicle park” which is indefinite because the meaning is unclear. Is the claim referring to contactless provision in addition to contactless detection? Is there a word missing between “occupancy” and “status”? What does provision mean in terms of occupancy status of parking lots. How would a system comprising a single sensor work across a plurality of parking lots, as encompassed by the claim? Applicant appears to center the disclosure on sensors that can cover up to six spaces in a single parking lot, but the claim appears to encompass a single sensor that can cover a single “parking lot” in a plurality of “vehicle car parks” which does not make sense. It would make more sense to say that the system is for contactless detection of the occupancy status of a plurality of parking spaces in a parking lot/park (whichever word is preferred). Dependent claims 2-13 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the at least 3 receivers are arranged such that the second receiver (RX2) is a reference, the first receiver (RX1) is located laterally to RX2 and the third receiver (RX3) is located longitudinally to RX2” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how relative directions such as laterally and longitudinally can be defined without a claimed shape or frame of reference for the radar module. For example, if the radar module is circular or any other non-rectangular shape, then there is no obvious or inherent longitudinal or lateral direction in the first place. Dependent claims 3-13 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the processes to analyse the data received from the radar modules to determine occupancy status of parking lots comprise instructions to: initialise…” which is indefinite, because it is unclear whether, and to what extent, the types of processes that the detection board is “adapted” to execute serve as a structural limitation on the system of the invention. Is it a generic computer component that is inherently capable of performing such processes, or are the instructions actually present on memory that is operatively connected to and/or part of the detection board? Claims 5 and 7-12 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 4 and 13 fail to cure the deficiency.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bakucz (US 2019/0355255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bakucz discloses a system for contactless detection and provision on an occupancy status parking lots in at least one vehicle park (abstract, regarding a radar sensor is mounted in the area of a parking space for a motor vehicle) comprising:
a frontend sensor unit including a plurality of radar modules (radar sensors 115; fig. 1) and a detection board (processing device 120; fig. 1),
each of the radar modules comprises a transmitter configured to transmits L consecutive frequency modulated chirps (para. [0028], regarding radar signals are emitted with the aid of radar sensor 115 in a first step 205, and are reflected on motor vehicle 110 in a step 210 if the motor vehicle is present in the parking space 105 before the radar signals are received by radar sensor 115) and at least 3 receivers configured to collect the return chirps (para. [0029], regarding one typical radar sensor, called “LRR3”, that is known in the automotive field includes, for example, eight channels with one radar frequency each, so that eight noise signals 8 may also be scanned; see also document “LRR3: 3rd generation Long-Range Radar Sensor, p. 1, detailing that the LRR3 has four antenna elements that can transmit and receive radar waves); and
the detection board is adapted to control and receive data from each of the radar modules and executing processes to analyse the data received from the radar modules to determine occupancy status of parking lots (para. [0024], regarding processing device 120 is configured for determining an occupancy state of parking space 105 based on received radar signals of radar sensor 115).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakucz (US 2019/0355255 A1) in view of Vacanti et al. (US 2014/0292561 A1), hereinafter Vacanti.
Regarding claim 2, Bakucz discloses the invention of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the at least 3 receivers are arranged such that the second receiver (RX2) is a reference, the first receiver (RX1) is located laterally to RX2 and the third receiver (RX3) is located longitudinally to RX2.
However, Vacanti is in the field of radar systems (abstract) and teaches wherein the at least 3 receivers are arranged such that the second receiver (RX2) is a reference (one of the antenna elements 160 in a corner, as shown in fig. 5-1), the first receiver (RX1) is located laterally to RX2 and the third receiver (RX3) is located longitudinally to RX2 (as shown in fig. 5-1, in a similar manner to Applicant’s Figure 5.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Bakucz such that the at least 3 receivers are arranged such that the second receiver (RX2) is a reference, the first receiver (RX1) is located laterally to RX2 and the third receiver (RX3) is located longitudinally to RX2 as taught by Vacanti, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the receivers can receive radar signals from different angles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights