DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 because:
FIG. 10: The "Yes" and "No" outputs of decision step S4 should be labeled (see Fig. 9, where the outputs of decision step S2 are labeled).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
· Claim(s) 1-8: a velocity information acquisition unit that acquires velocity information regarding a velocity of an object approaching a predetermined area or going away from the predetermined area on a basis of the reflected wave,
· Claim(s) 1-8: an object discrimination unit that determines whether or not an object is a vehicle on a basis of the velocity information,
· Claim(s) 1-8: a presence/absence determination unit that determines whether or not an object is in the predetermined area on a basis of at least one of reflection intensity information indicating an intensity of the reflected wave or distance information indicating a distance to an object obtained on a basis of the reflected wave, wherein,
· Claim(s) 2: a reflection intensity information acquisition unit that acquires the reflection intensity information,
· Claim(s) 2: a distance information acquisition unit that acquires the distance information.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
Claim 1, final line recites "single input single output (SISO) method". ¶57 states "the velocity information, the reflection intensity information, and the distance information are information acquired using the single transmitter and the single receiver 20, in other words, information obtained by a single input single output (SISO) method". This states that a SISO method means there is a single transmitter and a single receiver, as is known in the art. However, ¶78 then recites "the transmission wave may be emitted from different transmitters of the SISO method toward the predetermined area P and the front area Pf or the rear area Pb, or the reflected wave returning from the predetermined area P and the front area Pf or the rear area Pb may be received using different receivers 20 of the SISO method". This states that a SISO method can have multiple transmitters and/or multiple receivers, which contradicts ¶57 and the known definition of SISO in the art. Since the term "SISO method" is used inconsistently in the disclosure, it is unclear how to construe the term "SISO method" in the claims. In order to further examine the claims, it will be assumed that a "SISO method" requires the use of a single transmitter and a single receiver.
Claim 8 recites similar language.
Claims 2-7 are dependent upon claim 1.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogura (US 2021/0080556 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Ogura discloses a vehicle detection sensor (Radar, Fig. 21), the vehicle detection sensor emitting a transmission wave whose frequency changes as time passes, and receiving a reflected wave of the transmission wave reflected by an object and returning (Fig. 21; ¶9; ¶61; ¶129; ¶240), the vehicle detection sensor comprising:
a velocity information acquisition unit that acquires velocity information regarding a velocity of an object approaching a predetermined area or going away from the predetermined area on a basis of the reflected wave (¶9; ¶58; ¶60; ¶63) [where velocity is speed and direction]);
an object discrimination unit that determines whether or not an object is a vehicle on a basis of the velocity information (¶61-63); and
a presence/absence determination unit that determines whether or not an object is in the predetermined area on a basis of at least one of reflection intensity information indicating an intensity [amplitude] of the reflected wave or distance information indicating a distance to an object obtained on a basis of the reflected wave (Fig. 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 21; ¶52; ¶56; ¶233), wherein
the velocity information and at least one of the reflection intensity information and the distance information are information obtained by a single input single output (SISO) method (Fig. 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 14; ¶198-199; ¶232).
The remaining claim limitations are recited as intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. “It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429.
Here, the structure of the sensor is not changed by changing the location of the sensor.
Although not required by the claim, Ogura discloses the use, where the vehicle detection sensor is installed at a predetermined place on a site where a vehicle enters or exits (Railroad Crossing, Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 2, Ogura further discloses a reflection intensity [amplitude] information acquisition unit that acquires the reflection intensity [amplitude] information; and a distance information acquisition unit that acquires the distance information, wherein the presence/absence determination unit determines whether an object is present in the predetermined area on a basis of the reflection intensity [amplitude] information and the distance information (Fig. 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 21; ¶52; ¶56; ¶233).
In regard to claim 3, Ogura further discloses the vehicle detection sensor is configured to emit a transmission wave toward the predetermined area (Railroad Crossing, Fig. 21), and emit a transmission wave toward a front area or a rear area away forward or rearward from the predetermined area along an entrance/exit direction of the vehicle (dashed arrows from Radar showing transmission wave, including the dashed arrow to J) [where the arrow to J shows that the transmission travels to places outside the Railroad Crossing, where a transmission forward along the entrance/exit direction having the same distance as the arrow to J would extend past the Railroad Crossing. Put another way, the Radar doesn't just transmit along the directions of the dashed arrows, but through the angular range between the solid lines, where a signal in the direction of J having enough power to be able to reach building J means that a signal along the entrance/exit direction would go past the exit of the Railroad Crossing into the forward area (the 3.2 inches length of the dashed arrow reading J would reach past the exit of the Railroad Crossing in the entrance/exit direction into the forward area, where the entrance/exist direction is within the angular range of the radar).].
In regard to claim 4, Ogura further discloses a transmission wave traveling toward the predetermined area and a transmission wave traveling toward the front area or the rear area are emitted from a common transmitter, and reflected waves of the transmission waves reflected by an object and returned are received by a common receiver (20, Fig. 3; Fig. 5; Rx, Fig. 14; ¶199; ¶232).
In regard to claim 8, Ogura discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (7, 8, Fig. 31) having a vehicle detection sensor program thereon (¶14-16), which is used in a vehicle detection sensor (Radar, Fig. 21) installed at a predetermined place on a site where a vehicle enters or exits (Railroad Crossing, Fig. 21), the vehicle detection sensor emitting a transmission wave whose frequency changes as time passes, and receiving a reflected wave of the transmission wave reflected by an object and returning (Fig. 21; ¶9; ¶61; ¶129; ¶240), the program causing, when executed by a computer, the computer to exert functions as:
a velocity information acquisition unit that acquires velocity information regarding a velocity of an object approaching a predetermined area or going away from the predetermined area on a basis of the reflected wave (¶9; ¶58; ¶60; ¶63) [where velocity is speed and direction]);
an object discrimination unit that determines whether or not an object is a vehicle on a basis of the velocity information (¶61-63); and
a presence/absence determination unit that determines whether or not an object is in the predetermined area on a basis of at least one of reflection intensity information indicating an intensity of the reflected wave or distance information indicating a distance to an object obtained on a basis of the reflected wave (Fig. 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 21; ¶52; ¶56; ¶233), wherein
the velocity information and at least one of the reflection intensity information and the distance information are information obtained by a single input single output (SISO) method (Fig. 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 14; ¶198-199; ¶232).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Jenn (Radar Fundamentals).
In regard to claim 5, Ogura further discloses the antenna beam is directed at the center of the predetermined area (¶233).
Ogura fails to explicitly disclose a transmission/reception pattern indicating a transmission/reception antenna gain obtained by combining a transmission antenna gain of the transmitter corresponding to an emission angle of a transmission wave and a reception antenna gain of the receiver corresponding to a reception angle of a reflected wave has a first peak appearing in a front direction and a quasi-peak appearing at an angle different from the front direction and smaller than the first peak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when an object is in the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing and the same type of object is at a different angle in the area forward of the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing, the transmission/reception pattern of the antenna will have a first peak appearing in a front direction (a higher peak because the object in the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing is closer) and a quasi-peak appearing at an angle different from the front direction and smaller than the first peak (a smaller peak because the object in the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing is further away). This is simply recognizing a scenario that could readily occur with the system of Ogura.
Jenn teaches a transmission/reception pattern indicating a transmission/ reception antenna gain obtained by combining a transmission antenna gain of the transmitter corresponding to an emission angle of a transmission wave and a reception antenna gain of the receiver corresponding to a reception angle of a reflected wave (p. 17) [where a Radar uses the Radar Range Equation, including the transmission and reception antenna gains (i.e. combined in the term Gt*Gr) in determining the range/distance R to the objection].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to calculate the distance of the object from the radar
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the distance from the radar is calculated.
In regard to claim 6, Ogura fails to explicitly disclose the transmission/reception pattern has the quasi-peak on each of a high angle side and a low angle side of the first peak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when an object is in the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing and two of the same type of object are at different angles on either side in the area forward of the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing, the transmission/reception pattern of the antenna will have a first peak appearing in a front direction (a higher peak because the object in the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing is closer) and a quasi-peak (a smaller peak because the object in the predetermined area/Railroad Crossing is further away) from a high angle side and a low angle side of the first peak. This is simply recognizing a scenario that could readily occur with the system of Ogura.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Yugawa (JP 07110375 A).
Ogura further discloses an antenna radiation pattern that covers the desired predetermined area as well as the front/forward area relative to the predetermined area or the rear area relative to the predetermined area (Fig. 21) [where a signal of the antenna radiation pattern reaches J outside and in front of/forward from of the predetermined area, and where the radiation pattern also covers an area behind the predetermined area between the Radar and the predetermined area (i.e. the dashed beam lines at the bottom of Fig. 21 between the Radar and the predetermined area)].
Ogura fails to disclose a dielectric lens that refracts a part of a transmission wave emitted from the transmitter and guides the part of the transmission wave to the front area or the rear area.
Yugawa teaches a vehicle detection sensor comprising a dielectric lens that refracts a part of a transmission wave emitted from the transmitter and guides the transmission wave (¶12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to adjust the width of the antenna radiation pattern to match the size of the predetermined area, e.g. for a railroad crossing having one track vs. a railroad crossing having two tracks vs. a railroad tracking having three tracks.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the antenna radiation pattern is set to cover the size of the desired predetermined area.
In the combination, although focusing the antenna radiation pattern on the desired predetermined area will adjust the width of the radiation pattern, there will still be some of the pattern guided to the rear area between the Radar and the desired predetermined area, as in Fig. 21 of Ogura.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
PBE Axell (What is SISO (Single input, single output)?), which teaches that "SISO systems operate using a single antenna for transmission and one for reception within an area" (p. 1, ¶3).
Manikas (EE3-27: Principles of Classical and Modern Radar MIMO Radar), which teaches that SISO is transmission via one antenna and reception via one antenna (Figure on p. 4).
Ueno (JP 6811065 B2), which teaches a vehicle detection sensor installed at a predetermined place on a site where a vehicle enters or exits (2a, left side of Fig. 1; claim 1), the vehicle detection sensor emitting a transmission wave whose frequency changes as time passes, and receiving a reflected wave of the transmission wave reflected by an object and returning (claim 1), the vehicle detection sensor comprising: a velocity information acquisition unit that acquires velocity information regarding a velocity of an object approaching a predetermined area or going away from the predetermined area on a basis of the reflected wave (S8, Fig. 14; p. 39, ¶2; p. 40, ¶1); an object discrimination unit that determines whether or not an object is a vehicle on a basis of the velocity information (S9, Fig. 14); a presence/absence determination unit that determines whether or not an object is in the predetermined area on a basis of at least one of reflection intensity [reception level] information indicating an intensity of the reflected wave or distance information indicating a distance to an object obtained on a basis of the reflected wave (S7, Fig. 14; p. 39, ¶2), wherein the velocity information and at least one of the reflection intensity information and the distance information are information obtained by a single input single output (SISO) method (p. 8, ¶1); a reflection intensity information acquisition unit that acquires the reflection intensity [reception level] information (p. 39, ¶2); a distance information acquisition unit that acquires the distance information (p. 39, ¶2), wherein the presence/absence determination unit determines whether an object is present in the predetermined area on a basis of the reflection intensity information and the distance information (p. 39, ¶2).
Okunaga (JP 2016072806 A), which teaches using a lens (L, Fig. 1) causes a higher sensitivity over a winder angular area away from center (Fig. 4; ¶6; ¶24).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights