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.
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) 1-14: a vehicle counting module designed to detect vehicles passing the vehicle based on the signal strength curve and to add them together to a count value.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, "the signal strength" should be changed to --a signal strength--.
In claim 1, lines 8-9, "the signal strength curve" should be changed to something like --a signal strength curve determined from the signal strength--.
In claim 2, line 2, "the direction of travel" should be changed to --a direction of travel--.
In claim 5, line 4, "unites" should be changed to --units--.
In claim 5, line 6, "the at least two transmitting antenna units" should be changed to --at least two transmitting antenna unit--.
The remaining claims are dependent upon objected to claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 3 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 3, line(s) 2 recites the limitation "a count value" two times. It is unclear if these should read "the count value", referring to the "a count value" in claim 1, final line, or if these should read "a second count value" referring to an additional count value being determined.
Claim 5, line 11 recites "optionally". This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is unclear how to interpret claim 5 due to the multiple recitations of "and / or" in the claim language. One possible interpretation is:
The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
- at least two receiving antenna units spaced apart from each other in
(a) a transverse direction of the vehicle and / or
(b) in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle,
each of the at least two receiving antenna unites being set up to receive radio signals in the transmission frequency range,
- (a) wherein the signal strength curves of the radio signals received by the receiving antenna units are evaluated by the computing unit, and / or
- (b) wherein [[the]] at least two transmitting antenna units spaced from each other in
(i) the transverse direction of the vehicle and / or
(ii) the longitudinal direction of the vehicle,
each of which being configured to emit a radio signal impulse in a defined transmission frequency range; and
- a control unit configured to control the several transmitting antenna units
However, this would result in language that was first recited as being optional (at least two transmitting antenna units) then bring recited as required (the several transmitting antenna units in the final limitation). If the two transmitting antenna units and the several transmitting antenna units are meant to refer to the same thing, "the several transmitting antenna units" should be changed to "the at least two transmitting antenna units". If they are not meant to be the same thing, "the" before "several transmitting antenna units" should be deleted. However, based on the straightforward interpretation that they are referring to the same thing, the claim language refers to having at least two transmitting antenna units as both being optional and required. Another possibility is that applicant is reading how the "and / or" splits up the claim differently than the Office is. Thus, applicant should clarify the claim language so that how the claim should be interpreted in view of the multiple "and / or" limitations is clear.
Another possible way to interpret the claim is:
The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
- (a) at least two receiving antenna units spaced apart from each other in
(i) a transverse direction of the vehicle and / or
(ii) in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle,
each of the at least two receiving antenna unites being set up to receive radio signals in the transmission frequency range, wherein the signal strength curves of the radio signals received by the receiving antenna units are evaluated by the computing unit, and / or
- (b) wherein [[the]] at least two transmitting antenna units spaced from each other in
(i) the transverse direction of the vehicle and / or
(ii) the longitudinal direction of the vehicle,
each of which being configured to emit a radio signal impulse in a defined transmission frequency range; and a control unit configured to control the several transmitting antenna units
This interpretation avoids the contradiction of a limitation being described as both optional and required, although it still has the problem of "at least two transmitting antenna units" being subsequently referred to as "several transmitting antenna units". Here, all of the receiving limitations are part of the a first "and/or" option and all of the transmitting limitations are part of a second "and/or" option.
In other to further examine the claim, the second interpretation will be used, with the assumption that "the several transmitting antenna units" refers back to "at least two transmitting antenna units".
“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 § 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) 1-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Israelsson (EP 3168822 A1) in view of Manor (US 2008/0129546 A1) and Iovescu (The fundamentals of millimeter wave radar sensors).
In regard to claim 1, Israelsson discloses a vehicle (SV1, Fig. 4; ¶11) comprising:
a radar (¶42; ¶63);
at least one computing unit (3, Fig. 4), the at least one computing unit comprising a vehicle counting module designed to detect vehicles passing the vehicle to add them together to a count value (4, Fig. 4; ¶11).
Israelsson [fails to disclose the details of the radar, including] fails to explicitly disclose at least one transmitting antenna unit that is designed to emit a radio signal impulse in a defined transmission frequency range; at least one receiving antenna unit configured to receive radio signals in the defined transmission frequency range; and fails to disclose the at least one computing unit configured to evaluate the signal strength of the radio signal received by the receiving antenna unit, the detecting of vehicles passing the vehicle being based on the signal strength curve.
Manor teaches a vehicle counting (¶41; ¶51) FMCW (¶23) radar (¶25; ¶41) comprising:
at least one transmitting antenna unit (12, Fig. 1-3) that is designed to emit a radio signal impulse (¶3; ¶27) [single period/single pulse] in a defined transmission frequency range (¶23);
at least one receiving antenna unit configured to receive radio signals (14, 16, Fig. 1-3); and
at least one computing unit configured to evaluate the signal strength of the radio signal received by the receiving antenna unit, the detecting of vehicles passing the vehicle being based on the signal strength curve (20, Fig. 1; ¶47).
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 implement the details of the vehicle counting radar.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the vehicle counting radar is implemented using a known vehicle counting radar in the art.
Iovescu teaches a FMCW radar (p. 3, ¶1) comprising at least one transmitting antenna unit (2, Fig. 3) that is designed to emit a radio signal impulse in a defined transmission frequency range (Fig. 2);
at least one receiving antenna unit (3, Fig. 3) configured to receive radio signals in the defined transmission frequency range (Fig. 4) [where the transmit frequency range and the receiver frequency range are the same].
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 implement the details of an FMCW radar.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the FMCW radar is implemented using a known FMCW radar in the art.
In regard to claim 2, the combination further teaches the vehicle counting module is designed to determine
the direction of travel (Israelsson: ¶11; Manor: 614, Fig. 6; ¶46 [where velocity is speed plus direction]; Iovescu: p. 5-6 [where velocity is speed plus direction]),
a driving side and/or
a driving speed (Manor: 614, Fig. 6; ¶46 [where velocity is speed plus direction]; Iovescu: p. 5-6 [where velocity is speed plus direction])
of a passing vehicle based on the signal strength curve (Manor: ¶47).
In regard to claim 3, the combination further teaches the vehicle counting module is designed to determine
a count value based on the direction of travel (Israelsson: ¶11; Manor: ¶58 [where the direction of travel of the vehicles has been determined for the vehicles]) and/or
a count value based on the driving side.
In regard to claim 4, the combination further teaches the vehicle counting module is designed to determine
the direction of travel (Israelsson: ¶11; Manor: 614, Fig. 6; ¶46 [where velocity is speed plus direction]; Iovescu: p. 5-6 [where velocity is speed plus direction]) and/or
the driving speed of a passing vehicle using a Doppler effect (Iovescu: p. 6, col. 2).
In regard to claim 5, Manor further teaches:
at least two receiving antenna units spaced apart from each other in a transverse direction of the vehicle and/or in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, each of the at least two receiving antenna units being set up to receive radio signals in the transmission frequency range, wherein the signal strength curves of the radio signals received by the receiving antenna units are evaluated by the computing unit (Fig. 2; ¶47) [where Fig. 2 shows the antennas being arranged in a longitudinal direction with regard to the road 42. In the combination, the antennas are mounted on a vehicle. While the antennas may be mounted on the vehicle at any angle, the most straightforward angle to mount them would be in a longitudinal direction along the vehicle to allow the vehicle to be parked along the side of the road 42, where there would most likely be space for a vehicle to be located. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.], and/or
wherein the at least two transmitting antenna units spaced from each other in the transverse direction of the vehicle and/or the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, each of which being configured to emit a radio signal impulse in a defined transmission frequency range; and a control unit configured to control the several transmitting antenna units such that the radio signal impulse are adapted to optionally be emitted by each of the transmitting antenna units.
In regard to claim 6, the combination further teaches:
at least two receiving antenna units spaced from each other in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Manor: Fig. 2; ¶47) [where Fig. 2 shows the antennas being arranged longitudinally with regard to the road 42. In the combination, the antennas are mounted on a vehicle. While the antennas may be mounted on the vehicle at any angle, the most straightforward angle to mount them would be longitudinally along the vehicle to allow the vehicle to be parked along the side of the road 42, where there would most likely be space for a vehicle to be located. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.],
wherein the vehicle counting module is designed to determine
the direction of travel (Israelsson: ¶11; Manor: 614, Fig. 6; ¶46 [where velocity is speed plus direction]; Iovescu: p. 5-6 [where velocity is speed plus direction]) and/or
the driving speed of a passing vehicle by comparing the signal strength curves of the different receiving antenna units.
In regard to claim 7, Manor further teaches at least two receiving antenna units spaced in the transverse direction of the vehicle (Fig. 3) [where Fig. 3 shows the antennas being arranged in a transverse direction with regard to the road 52. In the combination, the antennas are mounted on a vehicle. While the antennas may be mounted on the vehicle at any angle, the most straightforward angle to mount them in this configuration (the antennas being in a transverse direction with respect to the road) would be in a transverse direction along the vehicle to allow the vehicle to be parked along the side of the road 52, where there would most likely be space for a vehicle to be located. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.]
The remaining limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 2 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "the direction of travel; a driving side and/or a driving speed". If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, the combination teaches determining the direction of travel and a driving speed, as detailed in the rejection of claim 2. Claim 7 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., determining a driving side.
In regard to claim 8, Israelsson further discloses a communication interface, such that the vehicle counting module is activated (¶11; ¶23).
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to control the functions of a vehicle using a user interface located in a vehicle interior or using a mobile device.
In regard to claim 9, Iovescu further teaches
a start and/or
duration (p. 3, col. 1)
of measurement is received via the communication interface, and wherein
the start and/or
duration (p. 3, col. 1)
of measurement is adjusted by the mobile device or the user interface, where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust details of the transmission based on ambient conditions (e.g. multipath conditions, weather conditions) to make sure that the reflection of the transmission is received.
In regard to claim 10, the combination further teaches at least one transceiver device comprising a transmitting antenna unit and a receiving antenna unit (Manor: Fig. 1-3; Iovescu: Fig. 3), wherein the transceiver device is configured to operate the transmitting antenna unit and the receiving antenna unit substantially simultaneously (Iovescu: Fig. 4) [where the transmitting and receiving occur at the same time between the dashed vertical lines].
In regard to claim 11, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to control the functions of a vehicle using a mobile device/radio remote control system.
In regard to claim 13, Israelsson further discloses the use of high frequency signals (p. 2). The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to high-pass filter the received reflection signals in order to isolate the desired signals. Thus, the combination, the vehicle counting module is designed to detect the vehicles passing by the vehicle based on a high-pass filtered signal strength curve.
In regard to claim 14, the combination further teaches:
providing a vehicle according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above); and
evaluating the signal strength of the radio signal received by the receiving antenna unit (Manor: ¶47).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Israelsson, Manor, and Iovescu, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Chae (KR 20130049639 A).
The combination fails to teach the transmitting antenna unit and the receiving antenna unit are based on ultra-wideband technology.
Chae teaches it is known for a vehicle counting radar to be based on ultra-wideband technology, which uses low power (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1).
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 reduce the power usages of the system.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the system uses less power.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Yang (A Portable Traffic Counting, Speed Estimation, and Classification Terminal Using IR-UWB Radar), which teaches an impulse response UWB radar for traffic counting and speed determination (abstract; section IIIB and IIIC).
Cashler (US 2016/0274228 A1), which teaches a vehicle using radar to detect which driving side another vehicle is on (¶2; ¶10; ¶14).
Bersani (An integrated algorithm for ego-vehicle and obstacles state estimation
for autonomous driving), which teaches a vehicle with two radar transmitting antenna units arranged in a longitudinal direction (section 8) [where two radars located within the vehicle front and rear bumpers are used].
Wilforth (DE 102013104279 A1), which teaches which teaches a vehicle with two radar transmitting antenna units arranged in a transverse direction (2, Fig. 1-2), two radar receiving antenna units arranged in a transverse direction (3, Fig. 1), and radar receiving antenna units including pairs in a longitudinal direction and pairs in a transverse direction (3, Fig. 2).
Bernas (A Survey and Comparison of Low-Cost Sensing Technologies for Road Traffic Monitoring), which teaches road traffic monitoring using radar in order to monitor multiple traffic lanes and determine speed information (p. 12, Table 3).
Lücken (US 2018/0275260 A1), which teaches using a signal strength curve in order to count vehicles (¶27-28; ¶57-58; ¶107; ¶116).
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