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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 have been examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Warning Device with Radar-Based Point-Cloud Detection of Approaching Objects
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10-12 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 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites:
“wherein a distance between the radar module and the ground is greater than a given distance”
The claim does not identify what constitutes the recited “given distance.” The claim therefore does not provide an objective boundary for determining when the required distance between the radar module and the ground satisfies this limitation.
The phrase “a given distance” does not identify a numerical value, range, relationship to another claimed structure, or other objective criterion by which one of ordinary skill in the art can determine the scope of the limitation from the claim itself.
Thus, the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, identifies a:
“controller, comprising a processing module”
Claim 5 subsequently recites:
“wherein the processing unit triggers a primary warning...”
and further:
“the processing unit triggers an enhanced warning...”
The claims therefore use “processing module” in claim 1 and subsequently introduce “processing unit” in claim 5 without establishing whether the “processing unit” is:
the previously recited processing module;
a different component of the controller; or
an additional processing component.
Because the claim does not establish the identity or relationship between the “processing module” and the “processing unit,” the scope of the claimed warning-control functionality is unclear.
Accordingly, claim 5 does not reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the boundaries of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 requires that:
“the enhanced warning instruction starts the at least one warning lamp to flash at a high frequency and starts the buzzer to sound abnormally.”
The term “sound abnormally” does not establish an objective boundary identifying what acoustic operation constitutes an “abnormal” sound.
The claim does not specify whether “abnormally” refers to:
sound frequency;
sound volume;
sound pattern;
intermittent operation;
duration;
modulation; or
another characteristic.
Consequently, the claim does not provide sufficient clarity as to the particular acoustic operation required by the claimed enhanced warning.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 5.
Claim 6 recites:
“wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust...”
However, claim 6 depends from claim 5, which itself introduces the term “processing unit” without establishing whether that unit is identical to the “processing module” of claim 1 or is a separate component.
Accordingly, the scope of the claimed component performing the recited adjustment function is unclear.
Claim 7:
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 7 recites:
“calculate a reflective area of the at least one target object corresponding to at least one of the dynamic points of the data points”
However, claim 1 expressly identifies:
“dynamically approaching data points”; and
“stationary points and dynamically moving away points.”
Claim 7 instead introduces “dynamic points” without establishing whether this term refers to:
the dynamically approaching data points;
the dynamically moving away points;
both categories; or
another subset of the point-cloud data.
The claim therefore does not establish with reasonable clarity which data points are used to calculate the recited reflective area.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 9 requires determining whether:
“the predicted trajectory of the vehicle after avoiding the other target objects overlaps a location of the warning device.”
The phrase “after avoiding the other target objects” does not establish the claimed operation by which the vehicle is considered to have avoided the other target objects.
In particular, the claim does not define whether “avoiding” requires:
an actual maneuver;
a predicted maneuver;
a change in trajectory;
a change in velocity;
a particular minimum separation; or
another objectively ascertainable condition.
Consequently, the scope of the required predicted trajectory is unclear.
Claims 10-12:
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite.
Each claim requires transmission of a collision warning message to:
“at least one adjacent communication device”
The term “adjacent” does not establish an objective boundary defining which communication devices qualify as adjacent.
For example, based solely on the claim language, it is unclear whether “adjacent” is determined by:
physical distance;
communication range;
network topology;
relative location;
geographic proximity; or
another criterion.
Because the claim does not establish the relevant boundary, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty which communication devices fall within the scope of the limitation.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the processing module in claim 1, the processing unit in claims 5-7, the prediction unit in claims 8-9, the communication unit in claims 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-4, 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
