DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of November 17, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 1-20 stand CANCELLED.
It is further noted that claims 21-40 are NEWLY-ADDED.
The drawings of November 17, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office refers to the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Please note that on line 1 of paragraph [0001] of the specification as it appears in the preliminary amendment, “18,231,218” is a typographical error for “18/231,218.” Correction is hereby required within the period for response to this office action.
Claim Interpretation
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 21-40 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.
In each of claims 21-28, 34, and 39, the uses of “station” (includes “multi-station”) and “stations” are indefinite and unclear in context as to what a “station” is in context. For purposes of examination, “station” and “stations” are presumed to mean a place or places in which a person is seated.
On line 2 of independent claim 29, the phrase, “by one or more integrated circuits” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether the phrase means: (1) the steps on lines 3-6 of the claim are performed by the “one or more integrated circuits,” or, (2) the steps on lines 3-6 of the claim are controlled by the “one or more integrated circuits.” It is suggested that “by means of one or more integrated circuits” may be meant.
On line 6 of independent claim 29, “the received radar signals” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “received radar signals.”
On line 2 of dependent claim 30, “the transmit radar signals” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “transmit radar signals” in either claim 30 or in claim 29.
Each of dependent claims 22-28 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 21.
Each of dependent claims 30-33 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 29.
Each of dependent claims 35-40 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 34.
Prior Art Rejections
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 21 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2003/0201894 A1), hereinafter Li (‘894).
The text of independent claim 21 is as follows:
“21. (New) A multi-station occupancy detector, comprising: at least one transmission antenna; at least one reception antenna; a transmission radar transceiver, coupled to the at least one transmission antenna, configured to provide transmit radar signals; a reception radar transceiver, coupled to the at least one reception antenna, configured to accept received radar signals; and a controller, coupled to the reception radar transceiver, configured to derive radar measurements indicating occupancy of each of multiple stations based at least in part on the received radar signals.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 21, Li (‘894) plainly discloses, “A multi-station occupancy detector” (line 1) in that it detects occupancy in the multiple seating stations within a vehicle, noting, for example, paragraph [0001], and, paragraph [0006] at lines 1-3.
The claim 21, “at least one transmission antenna” (line 2) is met by the disclosed transmit antennas in Li (‘894), noting, for example, TX1 and TX2 in drawing Figure 2, and, paragraph [0019] at lines 8-9 (“one or more antennas configured to transmit”).
The claim 21, “at least one reception antenna” (line 3) is met by the disclosed receive antennas in Li (‘894), noting, for example, RX1 and RX2 in drawing Figure 2, and, paragraph [0019] at line 10 (“one or more antennas configured to receive”).
The claim 21, “transmission radar transceiver, coupled to the at least one transmission antenna, configured to provide transmit radar signals” (lines 4-5) is met in Li (‘894), at least, by either “TRANSCEIVER I” (38) OR “TRANSCEIVER II” (40) as illustrated in drawing Figure 2.
The claim 21, “reception radar transceiver, coupled to the at least one reception antenna, configured to accept received radar signals” (lines 6-7) is met in Li (‘894), at least, by either other of the “TRANSCEIVER I” (38) OR “TRANSCEIVER II” (40) as illustrated in drawing Figure 2.
The claim 21, “controller, coupled to the reception radar transceiver, configured to derive radar measurements indicating occupancy of each of multiple stations based at least in part on the received radar signals” (lines 8-10) is met in Li (‘894), at least, by “MICRO-CONTROLLER” (32) as illustrated in drawing Figure 2, noting, for example, paragraph [0021] at lines 1-4.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 21 is plainly disclosed in Li (‘894), independent claim 21 is anticipated by Li (‘894).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 34 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 21. In addition, in Li (‘894), please note, for example, paragraph [0018] at lines 1-4 (noting the disclosure of “vehicle 10” with the disclosed occupant sensing system. So, independent claim 34 is likewise anticipated by Li (‘894).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘894).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several year of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radar systems.
Regarding independent claim 29, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 21. However, Li (‘894) discloses an “electric control unit” or a “microcontroller 32,” noting, for example, paragraph [0021], without mentioning “integrated circuits.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “electric control unit” or “microcontroller 32” using “one or more integrated circuits,” as opposed to implementing the “electric control unit” or “microcontroller 32” using discrete components for the advantages of reduced size, weight, and cost, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Claims 22-28, 30-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘894) in view of Ben Khadhra et al (‘965).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several year of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radar systems.
Looking, first, to the further limitations of each of dependent claims 22 and 23, Li (‘894) generally discloses a plurality of antennas, noting, for example, antennas TX1, TX2, RX1, and RX2 in drawing Figure 2, and, paragraph [0019] at lines 8-11; however, Li (‘894) does not disclose either a “transmission antenna array” (claim 22) or a “reception antenna array” (claim 23).
Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) in the same field of endeavor as Li (‘894) teaches the use of phased array antennas for both transmitting and receiving, noting, for example, paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0073] at lines 1-6; and, paragraph [0076] at lines 1-5, in order to gain the advantage of allowing for the use of beamforming for enabling distinguishing and classifying more than one object within the interior of the vehicle (paragraph [0035] at lines 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) phased array antennas in Li (‘894) as taught by Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Ben Khadhra et al (‘965). So, the further limitations of each of dependent claims 22 and 23 are obvious over the applied combination of Li (‘894) in view of Ben Khadhra et al (‘965).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 24, these are substantially-met by the applied combination as applied above to dependent claim 23. Further, in that Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) of the applied combination discloses phased array antennas generally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different relative numbers of elements in the transmit array and in the receive array from among the very large number of combination in an effort to optimize the functioning of the claimed device.
Next, as for the further limitations of dependent claims 25 and 26, these are substantially-met by the applied combination as applied above to dependent claims 22 and 23. Further, due to the teaching of Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) in paragraph [0035] at lines 1-4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the phases in the phased arrays of the applied combination would necessarily have to be adjusted to distinguish and classify the different persons/objects within the vehicle, with a reasonable likelihood of success. Further, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the “MICRO-CONTROLLER” 32 in Li (‘894) control the phase adjustment for the well-known advantages of computer control of antennas, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In dependent claim 27, due to the teaching of Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) in paragraph [0035] at lines 1-4 as to distinguishing and classifying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have some form of suitable coordinates to identify the persons/objects being distinguished and classified (such as azimuth, elevation, and range) and to have the coordinates stored in a computer memory so that results of distinguishing and classifying would be in a logical order according to what was being processed, with a reasonable likelihood of success. That is to say, each seat in the vehicle would have coordinates identifying its location, by which the results of the distinguishing and classifying could be conveniently organized.
The further limitations of dependent claim 28 are met, at least, by the analysis involved in the distinguishing and classifying in Ben Khadhra et al (‘965) of the applied combination.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 30 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 25.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 31 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 26.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 32 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 27.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 33 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 28.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 35 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claims 22 and 23.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 36 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 24.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 37 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 25.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 38 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 26.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 39 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 27.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 40 are substantially those above made with respect to dependent claim 28.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breed et al (‘133) is of general interest for showing the general state of the related prior art, and, for mentioning of radar and phase array antennas.
Diewald (‘492) is of general interest for showing the general state of the related prior art, and, for mentioning radar and an antenna system.
Zeng et al (‘166) is of general interest for showing the general state of the related prior art.
Breed et al (‘103) is of general interest for showing the general state of the related prior art, and, for mentioning of radar and phase array antennas.
Zeng et al (‘932) is of general interest for showing the general state of the related prior art.
In that each of the examiner-cited references above merely shows the state of the related prior art, they could not be used to reject the claims either alone or in combination.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights