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 1-8 have been examined.
Claims 6-8 have been added.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiner’s Note:
The 04/24/2026 Drawings have rendered moot the objection to the Drawings. Furthermore, the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in view of the 04/24/2026 claim amendments, where the “radio wave irradiation unit” has been deleted from the claims. However, the 04/24/2026 claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). See below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation “an antenna sequentially irradiates a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected by the at least one external sensor”, which is a method step, however, Claim 1 is a system claim, making this limitation improper. Furthermore, the claim also recites “a plurality of processors, when executed by a program, are configured to: control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves”, therefore, the indicated improper method step of “an antenna sequentially irradiates” causes the claim to have two method steps directed to irradiating the “plurality of radio waves”, which is not supported by the disclosure. 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 6-8 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 “a plurality of processors, when executed by a program, are configured to:
control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna;
detect the plurality of radio waves that were irradiated in the sequential order; and
identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves” introduces new matter not present in the application as originally filed.
The disclosure does not recite a “plurality of processors” that “when executed by a program” are configured to perform the steps of “control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna; detect the plurality of radio waves that were irradiated in the sequential order; and identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves”.
The specification recites exactly two processors, which are the processor “111” of the “vehicle controller 110” as seen in P[0017], and the processors “201” of the “server 200” as seen in P[0021]. There is no disclosure of multiple processors, or a “plurality” of processors, that are configured to perform the claimed “control the antenna”, “detect the plurality of radio waves” and “identify at least one object” steps as claimed. For example, regarding the “identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves” step, the identification of a vehicle is described in P[0043] as “the identification unit 213 identifies the target vehicle 100T”, therefore, the single “identification unit 213” performs the equivalent of the claimed “identify” step, and a “plurality of processors” does not perform the identification of a vehicle.
Furthermore, the “identification unit 213” is one of multiple units that the processor “201” of the servers functions as, as seen in P[0030] which recites “the processor 201 of the server 200 functions as the layout status acquisition unit 211, the irradiation indicating unit 212, the identification unit 213, the locating unit 214, and the remote control unit 215 by executing the program PG2”, which clearly shows that a single processor performs the claimed “identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves”, not a “plurality of processors” as claimed. Therefore, the claim amendment introduces new matter.
As such, there is no indication that the inventors had possession of identification system comprising the new matter limitations of a plurality of processors, when executed by a program, are configured to: control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna; detect the plurality of radio waves that were irradiated in the sequential order; and identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves.
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 1-4 and 6-8 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 recites “a plurality of processors, when executed by a program, are configured to:
control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna;
detect the plurality of radio waves that were irradiated in the sequential order; and
identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves”.
It is unclear if each step of “control the antenna”, “detect the plurality of radio waves” and “identify at least one object” requires all of the “plurality of processors” to be performed, or each processor of the “plurality of processors” performs only a single step.
Also, it is unclear how the “plurality of processors” can both “control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves” and “detect the plurality of radio waves that were irradiated in the sequential order”. These limitations imply that the “plurality of processors” both irradiate and detect/receive the “plurality of radio waves”, and it is unclear how this is possible, and it is unclear what structural configuration is required to achieve the claimed result.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 4, the claim recites “a radio wave irradiating step of sequentially irradiating a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected in the object detecting step; a controlling step of controlling an antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna”.
It is unclear if the step of “sequentially irradiating a plurality of radio waves” is or is not equivalent to the step of “irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order”. As a result, it is also unclear if the claim is attempting to require two separate and distinct steps of irradiating “a plurality of radio waves”. The Examiner notes that the specification does not appear to disclose a method comprising two steps of irradiating “a plurality of radio waves” as claimed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenaga et al. (5,554,984) in view of Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769).
Regarding Claim 1, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification system comprising:
at least one external sensor that detects a plurality of objects (“…outstations as shown in FIG. 1 are installed at control points in various places…Three antennas 5, 6 and 7 for debiting process are mounted on the first gantry 1 to correspond to the respective lanes in the direction perpendicular to the travelling direction of the vehicle and six monitoring cameras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 for photographing illegally passing vehicles are also mounted on the first gantry 1 in the direction perpendicular to the travelling direction of the vehicle”, see col.6, particularly lines 30-55 and FIG. 1);
an antenna sequentially irradiates a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected by the at least one external sensor (“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);
a plurality of processors (see col.8, particularly lines 49-65), when executed by a program, are configured to:
control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves 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);
detect the plurality of radio waves that were irradiated in the sequential order (“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
identify at least one object among the plurality of the objects using time series data of the plurality of radio waves (“…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 bolded portions of the claimed
control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna.
However, Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769) teaches control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; “…a phased-array antenna that is steerable (electronically and/or mechanically) to produce a beam pattern that extends in a pre-defined angle”, see P[0024], and “…the controller 16 may determine that multiple vehicles 115 are located in the same lane 107 (e.g., the vehicles 115c and 115d of FIG. 1)…the controller 16 may cause the detector station 30 to alternate between interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the first vehicle and interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the second vehicle”, see P[0033] and FIG. 1, and P[0034]-P[0035]).
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 Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, and to control the antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna, as rendered obvious by Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, in order to provide “adaptive beam steering for RFID detection systems that monitor throughways” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0003]) and in order to provide for “monitoring a throughway” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0004]).
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 plurality of radio waves in each of the plurality of objects is arranged in chronological order, and
the plurality of processors are further configured to identify the chronological order in which each of the plurality of radio waves 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).
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…Three antennas 5, 6 and 7 for debiting process are mounted on the first gantry 1 to correspond to the respective lanes in the direction perpendicular to the travelling direction of the vehicle and six monitoring cameras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 for photographing illegally passing vehicles are also mounted on the first gantry 1 in the direction perpendicular to the travelling direction of the vehicle”, see col.6, particularly lines 30-55 and FIG. 1);
a radio wave irradiating step of…irradiating a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected in the object 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);
a controlling step of controlling an antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves 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);
a radio wave detecting step of detecting the plurality of radio waves 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 plurality of radio waves detected in the radio wave detecting step (“…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 bolded portions of the claimed
a radio wave irradiating step of sequentially irradiating a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected in the object detecting step
and
a controlling step of controlling an antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna.
However, Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769) teaches a radio wave irradiating step of sequentially irradiating a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected in the object detecting step, and a controlling step of controlling an antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; “…a phased-array antenna that is steerable (electronically and/or mechanically) to produce a beam pattern that extends in a pre-defined angle”, see P[0024], and “…the controller 16 may determine that multiple vehicles 115 are located in the same lane 107 (e.g., the vehicles 115c and 115d of FIG. 1)…the controller 16 may cause the detector station 30 to alternate between interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the first vehicle and interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the second vehicle”, see P[0033] and FIG. 1, and P[0034]-P[0035]).
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 Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, and to perform a radio wave irradiating step of sequentially irradiating a plurality of radio waves to the plurality of the objects detected in the object detecting step, and a controlling step of controlling an antenna to irradiate each of the plurality of radio waves to each of the plurality of the objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna, as rendered obvious by Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, in order to provide “adaptive beam steering for RFID detection systems that monitor throughways” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0003]) and in order to provide for “monitoring a throughway” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0004]).
Regarding Claim 5, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification device comprising:
at least one processor, when executed by a program, causes the identification device to:
control an antenna to irradiate each of a plurality of radio waves to each of a 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);
identify, using time series data of [[a]] the plurality of radio waves…irradiated to the plurality of the 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 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 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 bolded portions of the claimed
control an antenna to irradiate each of a plurality of radio waves to each of a plurality of objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna.
and
identify, using time series data of the plurality of radio waves sequentially irradiated to the plurality of the objects.
However, Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769) teaches control an antenna to irradiate each of a plurality of radio waves to each of a plurality of objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna, and identify, using time series data of the plurality of radio waves sequentially irradiated to the plurality of the objects (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; “…a phased-array antenna that is steerable (electronically and/or mechanically) to produce a beam pattern that extends in a pre-defined angle”, see P[0024], and “…the controller 16 may determine that multiple vehicles 115 are located in the same lane 107 (e.g., the vehicles 115c and 115d of FIG. 1)…the controller 16 may cause the detector station 30 to alternate between interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the first vehicle and interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the second vehicle”, see P[0033] and FIG. 1, and P[0034]-P[0035]).
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 Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, and to control an antenna to irradiate each of a plurality of radio waves to each of a plurality of objects in a sequential order that is based on one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna, and identify, using time series data of the plurality of radio waves sequentially irradiated to the plurality of the objects, as rendered obvious by Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, in order to provide “adaptive beam steering for RFID detection systems that monitor throughways” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0003]) and in order to provide for “monitoring a throughway” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0004]).
Regarding Claim 6, Shigenaga et al. teaches the claimed identification system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of the radio waves includes a first radio wave and a second radio wave, and the first radio wave emits to a first object of the plurality of the objects and the second radio wave emits to a second object 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Shigenaga et al. does not expressly recite the claimed identification system of claim 6, wherein the first radio wave emits earlier than the second radio wave when (i) a first distance between the antenna and the first object is smaller than (ii) a second distance between the antenna and the second object.
However, Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769) renders obvious wherein the first radio wave emits earlier than the second radio wave when (i) a first distance between the antenna and the first object is smaller than (ii) a second distance between the antenna and the second object (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; “…a phased-array antenna that is steerable (electronically and/or mechanically) to produce a beam pattern that extends in a pre-defined angle”, see P[0024], and “…the controller 16 may determine that multiple vehicles 115 are located in the same lane 107 (e.g., the vehicles 115c and 115d of FIG. 1)…the controller 16 may cause the detector station 30 to alternate between interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the first vehicle and interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the second vehicle”, see P[0033] and FIG. 1, and P[0034]-P[0035]), where as seen in FIG. 1, for a first vehicle and a second vehicle in a lane, clearly the cycling will lead to directing a beam to a first vehicle “115c” and then to a second vehicle “115d”.
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 Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, and wherein the first radio wave emits earlier than the second radio wave when (i) a first distance between the antenna and the first object is smaller than (ii) a second distance between the antenna and the second object, as rendered obvious by Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, in order to provide “adaptive beam steering for RFID detection systems that monitor throughways” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0003]) and in order to provide for “monitoring a throughway” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0004]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shigenaga et al. does not expressly recite the claimed identification system of claim 1, wherein the identifying the at least one object among the plurality of the objects further includes identifying the at least one object based on the sequential order that is based on the one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna.
However, Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769) teaches identifying the at least one object among the plurality of the objects further includes identifying the at least one object based on the sequential order that is based on the one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; “…a phased-array antenna that is steerable (electronically and/or mechanically) to produce a beam pattern that extends in a pre-defined angle”, see P[0024], and “…the controller 16 may determine that multiple vehicles 115 are located in the same lane 107 (e.g., the vehicles 115c and 115d of FIG. 1)…the controller 16 may cause the detector station 30 to alternate between interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the first vehicle and interrogation cycles that direct beams 33 at the relative position of the second vehicle”, see P[0033] and FIG. 1, and “…after the controller 16 detects a read event associated with a vehicle 115 (or, more particularly, the RFID tag 117 associated therewith), the controller 16 may update a record to track the usage of the throughway 105 by the vehicle 115”, see P[0034], also see P[0035]).
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 Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, and wherein the identifying the at least one object among the plurality of the objects further includes identifying the at least one object based on the sequential order that is based on the one or more distances between each of the plurality of the objects and the antenna, as rendered obvious by Kishorbhai Sanchaniya, in order to provide “adaptive beam steering for RFID detection systems that monitor throughways” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0003]) and in order to provide for “monitoring a throughway” (Kishorbhai Sanchaniya; see P[0004]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenaga et al. (5,554,984) in view of Kishorbhai Sanchaniya (2023/0024769) further 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 object is a moving object movable by unmanned driving, the identification system further comprises a vehicle controller configured to control
.
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 object is a moving object movable by unmanned driving, the identification system further comprises a vehicle controller configured to control operation of the at least one object, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights