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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Figures 7 and 8A state “FATURE AMOUNT…” but should state “FEATURE AMOUNT…” along the arrow after Box S21. Figure 8A states “ABNORAMAILTY” but should state “ABNORMALITY” in S24. Figure 8B states “THRESHOUILD” but should state “THRESHOLD”. Figure 11 states “SPEED INFORMATION ON OBJECT” but should state “POSITION INFORMATION ON OBJECT” along the arrow following 19. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0052], "speed measurement device 10A" should read "speed measurement device 30C"; and
in paragraph [0052], "odor detection device 30C" should read "odor detection device 10A".
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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites “the determination section determines whether or not the object is damaged”. The instant filed specification fails to define and/or describe what exactly constitutes the “object” being “damaged”, rendering the claim indefinite.
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, 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102426943 B1 to Park Sang Su (see entire reference), hereinafter referred to as “Su”. Su discloses an odor detection system (a system that detects vehicle air pollutants including volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and ammonia; Fig. 1; Para. [0001] and [0092]), an odor sensor that reacts to an odor of an object (fine dust sensor, element 20, measures the odors from vehicle emissions, Para. [0014] and [0038]), a speed calculation section that calculates movement speed of the object as viewed from the odor sensor (element 30, Para. [0038] [0040] and [0041]) (note: the speed of the object/vehicle is calculated as viewed from the odor sensor because both the odor sensor and lidar sensor, element 30, are stationary relative to each other), a determination section that determines a state of the object based on an output value of the odor sensor and the movement speed of the object (the state of the vehicle is whether or not it has excessive emissions, Para. [0014] [0017] [0099]) (as recited in instant independent claim 1); wherein the determination section determines whether or not the object is abnormal, where in this range, the “emission amount is notified to the vehicle owner above a certain standard value” (Para. [0017] [0099] [0128) (as recited in instant dependent claim 2). Su further discloses an odor detection method, performed by a system (Para. [0001] [0011] [0092] [0099] [0102] [0113]), including an odor sensor (element 20, Para. [0014] [0038]), a speed sensor (element 30, Para. [0014] [0015] [0040] [0099]), a speed calculation section (elements 30 and 10, Para. [0041]), and a determination section (Para. [0014] [0017] [0027] [0069] [0071] [0078]), causing the odor sensor to react to an odor of an object (Para. [0014] [0038] [0102]), causing the speed sensor to detect movement speed of the object (Para. [0014] [0015] [0040] [0041] [0042] [0099]), causing the speed calculation section to calculate movement speed of the object as viewed from the odor sensor (Para. [0041]) and causing the determination section to determine a state of the object based on an output value of the odor sensor and the movement speed of the target object as viewed from the odor sensor (Para. [0014] [0017] [0042] [0088] [0128]) (as recited in instant dependent claim 10). Su further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform (traffic management corporation server unit, element 140, and situation room server, element 110, Para. [0014] [0060] [0062] [0071]), acquiring an output value of an odor sensor that has reacted to an odor of an object (Para. [0014] [0060] [0061] [0068] [0107]), acquiring movement speed of the object detected by a speed sensor (Para. [0015] [0040] [0082] [0083]), calculating movement speed of the object as viewed from the odor sensor with a speed calculation section (Para. [0014] [0040] [0042]) and determining with a determination section a state of the object based on an output value of the odor sensor and the movement speed of the target object as viewed from the odor sensor (Para. [0082] [0083] [0084-0090]) (as recited in instant dependent claim 11).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102426943 B1 to Su as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 5,675,070 to Gelperin (see entire reference), hereinafter referred to as “Gelperin”. Su discloses an odor detection system having all the elements and associated functionality stated previously. Su further discloses a plurality of the odor sensors having mutually different characteristics to react to odors (Para. [0001] [0011] [0014] [0027]; Fig. 5). Su does not explicitly disclose the determination section that identifies the object on the basis of output values from the plurality of the odor sensors. Gelperin also teaches a plurality/array of odor sensors having mutually different characteristics to react to odors (Abstract; Col. 4, Lines 62-63; element 16), wherein the determination section identifies the object on the basis of output values from the plurality of the odor sensors (Abstract; Col. 4, Lines 63-67; Col. 5, Lines 55-57; Col. 7, Lines 6-7, 20-21; elements 40, 42, and 44). It would have been obvious to combine the odor detection system of Su with the array of odor sensors and the identifying technique of Gelperin to identify the vehicle class (such as diesel, or non-diesel) of a vehicle on the basis of output values from the plurality of odor sensors of Su (see Su, Para. [0006] and [0011]). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ju et al. (KR101368144B1) and Wang et al. (CN106596856A) are cited to teach an odor detection system, relevant to claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the claimed invention.
Hiroshi (WO2019102654A1) is cited to teach the plurality of odor sensors, relevant to claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W KEGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0271. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
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, John E Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/MATTHEW WALTER KEGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights