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 .
Claims 1-5 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “radio wave irradiation unit” of Claims 1 and 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The Examiner notes that P[0010] of the specification recites “The access point 80 comprises a radio wave irradiation unit 81 for irradiating radio waves to a plurality of the vehicles 100 detected by the target detection unit 90”, and FIG. 1 that shows element “81”, however, there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit 81”. Also, element “81” of FIG. 1 appears to be an antenna, and P[0011] of the specification recites “In this case, the radio wave irradiation unit 81 has a plurality of antennas. The radio wave irradiation unit 81, by changing the phase and the transmitted power for each antenna to control the directivity of the radio wave, to irradiate the radio waves in the desired directions D1-D4”, therefore, the “radio wave irradiation unit” is in fact not an antenna, but is something that “has a plurality of antennas” and is used to control characteristics of each antenna, therefore, FIG. 1 cannot be considered as showing structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit” as the antenna of FIG. 1 is not the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself, and the structure of the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself is not disclosed.
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “target detection unit”, “radio wave detection unit”, “identification unit” in claims 1 and 5, and “control unit” in Claim 3. According to Page 7167 of the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Notices), “C. Interpreting Claim Limitations Under § 112, ¶6”, the terms "module" and "unit" are non-structural terms which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: for the “target detection unit” see P[0009] of the specification which recites “…the target detection unit 90 is an external sensor 300…the external sensor 300 is configured to be a camera”, and for the “radio wave detection unit” see P[0017] of the specification which recites “The vehicle controller 110 is configured by a computer including a processor 111, a memory 112, an input/output interface 113, and an internal bus 114” and element “190” of FIG. 3, and for the “identification unit” see P[0021] of the specification which recites “…the server 200 is configured by a computer with a processor 201…” and element “213” of FIG. 3, and for the “control unit” see P[0021] of the specification which recites “The processor 201 implements various functions, including functions as a layout status acquisition unit 211, a irradiation indicating unit 212, an identification unit 213, a locating unit 214, and a remote control unit 215…” and element “215” of FIG. 3.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are 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 limitation “radio wave irradiation unit” in Claims 1 and 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The function is “sequentially irradiating a radio wave to the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit” in Claim 1, and “the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” in Claim 5. P[0010] of the specification recites “The access point 80 comprises a radio wave irradiation unit 81 for irradiating radio waves to a plurality of the vehicles 100 detected by the target detection unit 90”, and FIG. 1 that shows element “81”, however, there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit 81”. Also, element “81” of FIG. 1 appears to be an antenna, and P[0011] of the specification recites “In this case, the radio wave irradiation unit 81 has a plurality of antennas. The radio wave irradiation unit 81, by changing the phase and the transmitted power for each antenna to control the directivity of the radio wave, to irradiate the radio waves in the desired directions D1-D4”, therefore, the “radio wave irradiation unit” is in fact not an antenna, but is something that “has a plurality of antennas” and is used to control characteristics of each antenna, therefore, FIG. 1 cannot be considered as showing structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit” as the antenna of FIG. 1 is not the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself, and the structure of the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself is not disclosed.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 5-6 recite “collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects”. This is improper grammar, as there is no article preceding “order”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” is a method step that does not appear to be performed by the “identification device” of the preamble. Specifically, the “sequentially irradiated” step is not performed by the same structure that includes “an identification unit”, as seen in P[0019] and P[0021] of the specification and FIGS. 1 and 3, where the “identification unit” is included in the processor element “201” of FIG. 3, where “201” is an entirely separate element from the “radio wave irradiation unit” element “81” of FIG. 1 which is instead shown as being connected to an access point element “80” as seen in P[0008] of the specification and FIG. 1. Therefore, the claim improperly recites a method step in a system claim, where the method step is not performed by the claimed system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per Claim 1, the subject matter is the claimed “radio wave irradiation unit”.
P[0010] of the specification recites “The access point 80 comprises a radio wave irradiation unit 81 for irradiating radio waves to a plurality of the vehicles 100 detected by the target detection unit 90”, and FIG. 1 that shows element “81”, however, there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit 81”. Also, element “81” of FIG. 1 appears to be an antenna, and P[0011] of the specification recites “In this case, the radio wave irradiation unit 81 has a plurality of antennas. The radio wave irradiation unit 81, by changing the phase and the transmitted power for each antenna to control the directivity of the radio wave, to irradiate the radio waves in the desired directions D1-D4”, therefore, the “radio wave irradiation unit” is in fact not an antenna, but is something that “has a plurality of antennas” and is used to control characteristics of each antenna, therefore, FIG. 1 cannot be considered as showing structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit” as the antenna of FIG. 1 is not the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself, and the structure of the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself is not disclosed.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of an identification system comprising: a target detection unit detecting a plurality of objects; a radio wave irradiation unit sequentially irradiating a radio wave to the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit; a radio wave detection unit provided in each of the plurality of objects, the radio wave detection unit detecting the radio wave irradiated by the radio wave irradiation unit; and an identification unit identifying at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the radio wave detected by the radio wave detection unit.
As per Claim 5, the subject matter is the claimed “radio wave irradiation unit”.
P[0010] of the specification recites “The access point 80 comprises a radio wave irradiation unit 81 for irradiating radio waves to a plurality of the vehicles 100 detected by the target detection unit 90”, and FIG. 1 that shows element “81”, however, there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit 81”. Also, element “81” of FIG. 1 appears to be an antenna, and P[0011] of the specification recites “In this case, the radio wave irradiation unit 81 has a plurality of antennas. The radio wave irradiation unit 81, by changing the phase and the transmitted power for each antenna to control the directivity of the radio wave, to irradiate the radio waves in the desired directions D1-D4”, therefore, the “radio wave irradiation unit” is in fact not an antenna, but is something that “has a plurality of antennas” and is used to control characteristics of each antenna, therefore, FIG. 1 cannot be considered as showing structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit” as the antenna of FIG. 1 is not the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself, and the structure of the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself is not disclosed.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of an identification device comprising: an identification unit identifying, using time series data of a radio wave detected by a radio wave detection unit provided in each of a plurality of objects, at least one object among the plurality of objects, wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
As per Claim 1, the claim is unclear as the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function “sequentially irradiating a radio wave to the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit” in Claim 1, and there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit”. Therefore, the claim is unclear.
See the Claim Interpretation section above.
As per Claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the time series data is data in which reception timing of the radio wave in each of the plurality of objects is arranged in chronological order, the reception timing specified by an intensity change of the radio wave, the identification unit identifies the at least one object by collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects”.
The limitation “wherein the time series data is data in which reception timing of the radio wave in each of the plurality of objects is arranged in chronological order” is unclear. The limitation is not consistent with the Claim 1 definition of the “time series data”, as Claim 1 recites “time series data of the radio wave detected by the radio wave detection unit”, therefore, Claim 1 defines the “time series data” as data associated with a single “radio wave” and detected by a single “radio wave detection unit”, and it is unclear how this same “time series data” can also be data “in which reception timing of the radio wave in each of the plurality of objects is arranged in chronological order”, as this Claim 2 limitation appears to require multiple radio waves received by multiple objects.
Furthermore, the limitation “the reception timing specified by an intensity change of the radio wave” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by “specified”. Also, and it is unclear how a “reception timing” can be “specified” by “an intensity change of the radio wave”, as a timing of reception would presumably be dependent on simply when the radio wave is received.
Furthermore, the limitation “the identification unit identifies the at least one object by collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects” is unclear, as this limitation is written as a method step, yet Claim 2 is a system claim, and this limitation appears to be directed to an intended use which causes the scope of the claim to be unclear.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
It is understood by the Examiner that the limitation “the identification unit identifies the at least one object by collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim.
As per Claim 3, the limitations “a control unit controlling operation of the at least one object, the identification unit identifies the at least one object to be controlled by the control unit among the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit” are unclear.
Specifically, the limitation “a control unit controlling operation of the at least one object” is unclear, as the limitation “controlling” is a method step, and it is unclear if the “control unit” is controlling the “at least one object” prior to the “at least one object” being identified, as “controlling” as used in the claim implies control has already started at a previous time.
Furthermore, the limitation “the identification unit identifies the at least one object to be controlled by the control unit among the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit” is unclear, as it is unclear is the limitation “the at least one object to be controlled by the control unit” is or is not the same “at least one object” of “controlling operation of the at least one object”, and it is unclear how the “at least one object” can be “controlled” and “to be controlled” at the same time.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 4, the claim recites “a radio wave irradiating step of sequentially irradiating a radio wave to the plurality of the objects detected in the object detecting step”.
It is unclear what structure performs the step of “irradiating”.
Specifically, P[0010] of the specification recites “The access point 80 comprises a radio wave irradiation unit 81 for irradiating radio waves to a plurality of the vehicles 100 detected by the target detection unit 90”, and FIG. 1 that shows element “81”, however, there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit 81”. Also, element “81” of FIG. 1 appears to be an antenna, and P[0011] of the specification recites “In this case, the radio wave irradiation unit 81 has a plurality of antennas. The radio wave irradiation unit 81, by changing the phase and the transmitted power for each antenna to control the directivity of the radio wave, to irradiate the radio waves in the desired directions D1-D4”, therefore, the “radio wave irradiation unit” is in fact not an antenna, but is something that “has a plurality of antennas” and is used to control characteristics of each antenna, therefore, FIG. 1 cannot be considered as showing structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit” as the antenna of FIG. 1 is not the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself, and the structure of the “radio wave irradiation unit” itself is not disclosed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 5, the claim is unclear as the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function “the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” in Claim 5, and there is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “radio wave irradiation unit”. Therefore, the claim is unclear.
See the Claim Interpretation section above.
Furthermore as per Claim 5, the limitation “wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” is unclear, as this limitation is a method step that does not appear to be performed by the “identification device” of the preamble.
Specifically, the “sequentially irradiated” step is not performed by the same structure that includes “an identification unit”, as seen in P[0019] and P[0021] of the specification and FIGS. 1 and 3, where the “identification unit” is included in the processor element “201” of FIG. 3, where “201” is an entirely separate element from the “radio wave irradiation unit” element “81” of FIG. 1 which is instead shown as being connected to an access point element “80” as seen in P[0008] of the specification and FIG. 1.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
It is understood by the Examiner that the limitation “wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least one object to be controlled by the control unit" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigenaga et al. (5,554,984).
Regarding Claim 1, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification system comprising:
a target detection unit detecting a plurality of objects (“…outstations as shown in FIG. 1 are installed at control points in various places”, see col.6, particularly lines 30-35 and FIG. 1);
a radio wave irradiation unit sequentially irradiating a radio wave to the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit (“First of all, as shown in FIG. 7, in the first gantry 1, the antenna controller 29 controls to always transmit the response request signal to the in-vehicle unit 36 from the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 56-64 and “Accordingly, the specific started antenna for confirmation 20-22 transmits the response request signal. The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the second gantry 2 receives the response request signal and after the authentication transmits the response signal to the antenna for confirmation 20-22. At this time, it is confirmed whether double debiting is made or not and whether there is any sequence error or not. The response request signal and the response signal have the same contents as those used upon passing through the first gantry 1”, see col.13, particularly lines 9-20 and FIG. 1, where it can be seen that clearly the response request signal will be provided sequentially starting from the vehicle to the right side of the image closer to element “2” and then later provided to the vehicle to the left side of the vehicle closer to element “7”);
a radio wave detection unit provided in each of the plurality of objects, the radio wave detection unit detecting the radio wave irradiated by the radio wave irradiation unit (“First of all, as shown in FIG. 7, in the first gantry 1, the antenna controller 29 controls to always transmit the response request signal to the in-vehicle unit 36 from the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 56-64); and
an identification unit identifying at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the radio wave detected by the radio wave detection unit (“The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the first gantry 1 receives the response request signal and performs the authentication with the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7 by means of the random numbers. After confirmation of the response request signal, the in-vehicle unit 36 transmits a response signal to the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 65-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-5 and “For example, as shown in FIG. 16, when random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 1, the in-vehicle unit 1 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time. When random number N=2 in the in-vehicle unit 2, the in-vehicle unit 2 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of two times of one cycle time. When random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 3, the in-vehicle unit 3 responds to the response request signal A from the ANT3 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time”, see col.15, particularly lines 56-67 and “…communication between the in-vehicle units and the antennas can be made exactly successively by adoption of the TDMA method and accordingly the vehicle can be identified to be debited exactly” (emphasis added), see col.16, particularly lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 4, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification method comprising:
an object detecting step of detecting a plurality of objects (“…outstations as shown in FIG. 1 are installed at control points in various places”, see col.6, particularly lines 30-35 and FIG. 1);
a radio wave irradiating step of sequentially irradiating a radio wave to the plurality of the objects detected in the object detecting step (“First of all, as shown in FIG. 7, in the first gantry 1, the antenna controller 29 controls to always transmit the response request signal to the in-vehicle unit 36 from the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 56-64 and “Accordingly, the specific started antenna for confirmation 20-22 transmits the response request signal. The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the second gantry 2 receives the response request signal and after the authentication transmits the response signal to the antenna for confirmation 20-22. At this time, it is confirmed whether double debiting is made or not and whether there is any sequence error or not. The response request signal and the response signal have the same contents as those used upon passing through the first gantry 1”, see col.13, particularly lines 9-20 and FIG. 1, where it can be seen that clearly the response request signal will be provided sequentially starting from the vehicle to the right side of the image closer to element “2” and then later provided to the vehicle to the left side of the vehicle closer to element “7”);
a radio wave detecting step of detecting the radio wave irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects in the radio wave irradiating step (“First of all, as shown in FIG. 7, in the first gantry 1, the antenna controller 29 controls to always transmit the response request signal to the in-vehicle unit 36 from the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 56-64); and
an identifying step of identifying at least one object among the plurality of objects using time series data of the radio wave detected in the radio wave detecting step (“The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the first gantry 1 receives the response request signal and performs the authentication with the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7 by means of the random numbers. After confirmation of the response request signal, the in-vehicle unit 36 transmits a response signal to the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 65-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-5 and “For example, as shown in FIG. 16, when random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 1, the in-vehicle unit 1 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time. When random number N=2 in the in-vehicle unit 2, the in-vehicle unit 2 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of two times of one cycle time. When random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 3, the in-vehicle unit 3 responds to the response request signal A from the ANT3 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time”, see col.15, particularly lines 56-67 and “…communication between the in-vehicle units and the antennas can be made exactly successively by adoption of the TDMA method and accordingly the vehicle can be identified to be debited exactly” (emphasis added), see col.16, particularly lines 7-13).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” is a method step that does not appear to be performed by the “identification device” of the preamble, where the “sequentially irradiated” step is not performed by the same structure that includes “an identification unit”, as seen in P[0019] and P[0021] of the specification and FIGS. 1 and 3, where the “identification unit” is included in the processor element “201” of FIG. 3, where “201” is an entirely separate element from the “radio wave irradiation unit” element “81” of FIG. 1 which is instead shown as being connected to an access point element “80” as seen in P[0008] of the specification and FIG. 1. Therefore, it is understood by the Examiner that the limitation “wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification device comprising:
an identification unit (“…outstations as shown in FIG. 1 are installed at control points in various places”, see col.6, particularly lines 30-35 and FIG. 1) identifying, using time series data of a radio wave detected by a radio wave detection unit provided in each of a plurality of objects (“First of all, as shown in FIG. 7, in the first gantry 1, the antenna controller 29 controls to always transmit the response request signal to the in-vehicle unit 36 from the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 56-64), at least one object among the plurality of objects (“The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the first gantry 1 receives the response request signal and performs the authentication with the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7 by means of the random numbers. After confirmation of the response request signal, the in-vehicle unit 36 transmits a response signal to the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 65-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-5 and “For example, as shown in FIG. 16, when random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 1, the in-vehicle unit 1 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time. When random number N=2 in the in-vehicle unit 2, the in-vehicle unit 2 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of two times of one cycle time. When random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 3, the in-vehicle unit 3 responds to the response request signal A from the ANT3 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time”, see col.15, particularly lines 56-67 and “…communication between the in-vehicle units and the antennas can be made exactly successively by adoption of the TDMA method and accordingly the vehicle can be identified to be debited exactly” (emphasis added), see col.16, particularly lines 7-13), wherein the radio wave is sequentially irradiated by a radio wave irradiation unit to the plurality of the objects detected by a target detection unit (“First of all, as shown in FIG. 7, in the first gantry 1, the antenna controller 29 controls to always transmit the response request signal to the in-vehicle unit 36 from the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 56-64 and “Accordingly, the specific started antenna for confirmation 20-22 transmits the response request signal. The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the second gantry 2 receives the response request signal and after the authentication transmits the response signal to the antenna for confirmation 20-22. At this time, it is confirmed whether double debiting is made or not and whether there is any sequence error or not. The response request signal and the response signal have the same contents as those used upon passing through the first gantry 1”, see col.13, particularly lines 9-20 and FIG. 1, where it can be seen that clearly the response request signal will be provided sequentially starting from the vehicle to the right side of the image closer to element “2” and then later provided to the vehicle to the left side of the vehicle closer to element “7”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenaga et al. (5,554,984) in view of Palakonda et al. (2022/0188903).
Examiner’s Note:
The limitation “the identification unit identifies the at least one object by collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects” is unclear, as this limitation is written as a method step, yet Claim 2 is a system claim, and this limitation appears to be directed to an intended use which causes the scope of the claim to be unclear. It is understood by the Examiner that the limitation “the identification unit identifies the at least one object by collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim. However, for compact prosecution, the limitation is addressed in view of the prior art as seen below.
Regarding Claim 2, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification system of claim 1, wherein the time series data is data in which reception timing of the radio wave in each of the plurality of objects is arranged in chronological order…the identification unit identifies the at least one object by collating the time series data with order in which the radio wave is irradiated to each of the plurality of the objects (“The in-vehicle unit 36 mounted in the vehicle passing through the first gantry 1 receives the response request signal and performs the authentication with the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7 by means of the random numbers. After confirmation of the response request signal, the in-vehicle unit 36 transmits a response signal to the antennas for debiting process 5, 6 and 7”, see col.10, particularly lines 65-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-5 and “For example, as shown in FIG. 16, when random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 1, the in-vehicle unit 1 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time. When random number N=2 in the in-vehicle unit 2, the in-vehicle unit 2 responds to the response request signal E from the ANT2 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of two times of one cycle time. When random number N=3 in the in-vehicle unit 3, the in-vehicle unit 3 responds to the response request signal A from the ANT3 to transmit the response signal A after a delay time of three times of one cycle time”, see col.15, particularly lines 56-67 and “…communication between the in-vehicle units and the antennas can be made exactly successively by adoption of the TDMA method and accordingly the vehicle can be identified to be debited exactly” (emphasis added), see col.16, particularly lines 7-13).
Shigenaga et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
the reception timing specified by an intensity change of the radio wave.
However, Palakonda et al. (2022/0188903) teaches a road-side unit determining a vehicle location or relative location based on signal strength (Palakonda et al.; see P[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shigenaga et al. with the teachings of Palakonda et al., and the reception timing specified by an intensity change of the radio wave, as rendered obvious by Palakonda et al., in order to “determine the vehicle locations…of vehicles…in the area…” (Palakonda et al.; see P[0062]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenaga et al. (5,554,984) in view of Chaves et al. (2022/0355802).
Regarding Claim 3, Shigenaga et al. does not expressly recite the claimed identification system of claim 1, wherein the at least one objects is a moving object movable by unmanned driving, the identification system further comprises a control unit controlling operation of the at least one object, the identification unit identifies the at least one object to be controlled by the control unit among the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit.
However, Chaves et al. (2022/0355802) teaches a detection system that may send commands or instructions to autonomous vehicle controllers (Chaves et al.; “…the detection system 110 may send commands, instructions, or data to vehicle controllers (not shown in FIG. 1 for simplicity) provided within corresponding vehicles 120”, see P[0069]), where specific vehicles may be identified from a plurality of vehicles and other objects (Chaves et al.; see P[0076]-P[0078] and P[0117]-P[0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shigenaga et al. with the teachings of Chaves et al., and wherein the at least one objects is a moving object movable by unmanned driving, the identification system further comprises a control unit controlling operation of the at least one object, the identification unit identifies the at least one object to be controlled by the control unit among the plurality of the objects detected by the target detection unit, as rendered obvious by Chaves et al., in order to provide for “determining whether a vehicle is driving in an unsafe or unsatisfactory manner” (Chaves et al.; see Abstract), and in order to provide for “disabling or restricting one or more features of an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle” (Chaves et al.; see P[0133]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662