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 .
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 7-11 and 19 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 7 recites the limitation "the one or more transducers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and therefore incorporates it in its entirety. Claim 1 recites “a detection circuit” in line 6. Claim 8 recites “a detection circuit” in line 1. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same detection circuit previously recited in claim 1 or a second detection circuit separate from the one recited in claim 1. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claims 9-11 depend from claim 8 and incorporate it in its entirety and are therefore rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one or more transducers" in line 2. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kai (7812759).
With respect to claim 1, Kai discloses a transmission circuit (Col 2, lines 63-64)which, in operation, transmits transmission signals corresponding to a plurality of frequencies (Col 2, lines 55-57; Col 4, lines 2-3); a reception circuit (Col 3, lines 4-6) which, in operation, receives reception signals that the transmission signals is reflected at a plurality of reflection points of an object (Col 2, line 66-Col 3, line 3); and a detection circuit which, in operation, detects the object based on a composited signal obtained by combining the reception signals (Col 3, lines 43-49; Col 4, lines 26-27, 55-56; Col 6, lines 11-13, 48-50), wherein a power of the composited signal is greater than a power of each of the reception signals (Col 5, lines 13-18; Fig 4).
With respect to claim 13, Kai discloses transmitting transmission signals corresponding to a plurality of frequencies (Col 2, lines 55-57; Col 4, lines 2-3); receiving reception signals that the transmission signals is reflected at a plurality of reflection points of an object (Col 2, line 66-Col 3, line 3); and detecting the object based on a composited signal obtained by combining the reception signals (Col 3, lines 43-49; Col 4, lines 26-27, 55-56; Col 6, lines 11-13, 48-50), wherein a power of the composited signal is greater than a power of each of the reception signals (Col 5, lines 13-18; Fig 4).
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 2, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai in view of Bariant (2019/0056495).
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Kai teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the transmission signal is a chirp signal.
Bariant teaches the transmission signal is a chirp signal ([0012], line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method and system of Kai with the chirp signals of Bariant since such a modification would have provided better image detain and allow for clearer target separation.
With respect to claim 12, Kai teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach a vehicle in which the apparatus is mounted.
Bariant teaches a vehicle in which the apparatus is mounted ([0007], line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Kai to be mounted on a vehicle as taught by Bariant since such a modification would have allowed it to be used for self-parking or self-driving applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 15-18, and 20 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
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights