UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/455,884
`
`03/10/2017
`
`NAOYA YOSOKU
`
`731156.592
`
`6741
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`MALLEY SR" DANIEL P
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3648
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/17/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/455,884
`Examiner
`Daniel P Malley Sr.
`
`Applicant(s)
`YOSOKU et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3648
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/10/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 3/10/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)E] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`c)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datew.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190412
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`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 § 1 12
`
`2.
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1 — 6 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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`With regard to claims 1 and 6, the limitation “...a plurality of complementary
`
`groups obtained by grouping a plurality of pulse codes generated by at least one code
`
`coupling process on at least one basic code pair as complementary codes every time
`
`the transmission count is an integral multiple of a code count in the plurality of
`
`complementary groups...” is confusing due to the run-on nature of the limitation.
`
`Moreover, the limitation does not appear to be in accordance with the specification.
`
`See [0048], for example, which states that “...pulse code generating unit 150 selects a
`
`different complementary group from among a plurality of complementary groups
`
`obtained by grouping a plurality of pulse codes generated by a code coupling process
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 3
`
`on the basic code pair as complementary codes every time the transmission count
`
`counted by the pulse transmission count counting unit 106 is an integral multiple of a
`
`code count...”
`
`With regard to claim 2, the limitation
`
`codes {A, B, B', A', B, A, A', B} using
`
`codes {A, B} generated by the code coupling process and inverse codes {A', B} of the
`
`codes {A, 8}...” is ambiguous and perhaps the limitation could be clarified by correctly
`
`identifying them as “Spano codesz” -- Spano codes {A, B, B', A', B, A, A', B'} using
`
`Spano codes {A, B}
`
`With regard to claim 5, the last phrase “...and a same number of times” is
`
`dangling at the end of the claim and it is not clear what it refers back to.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`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 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.
`
`5.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 4
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
`
`WO201414132581 (hereinafter Morita) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`obvious over Spano et al., "Sequences of Complementary Codes for the Optimum
`
`Decoding of Truncated Ranges and High Sidelobe Suppression Factors for ST/MST
`
`Radar Systems", IEEE Trans, on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 34, Mo. 2, pp.
`
`330 — 345, March 1996 (Hereinafter Spano).
`
`(Since the primary reference,
`
`WO201414132581, is written in Japanese, US 20150123840A1, which claims priority to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 5
`
`the WO’581, is used for paragraph citation purposes since it provides an English
`
`translation of the W0 document).
`
`With regard to claims 1 and 6, as best understood, Morita discloses a radar
`
`apparatus and method (See, e.g., Morita at Figs. 1 — 9, wherein a radar apparatus and
`
`method are shown and described), comprising:
`
`Morita discloses a counter which counts a transmission count of pulse codes
`
`from start of measurement (See, e.g., Morita at Figs. 5 — 7, and the related text,
`
`including [0065 — 70, 84, 143 — 144], wherein a counter 402 configured to count a
`
`transmission count of pulse codes from the start of the measurement conducted in
`
`every transmission cycle);
`
`Morita discloses a pulse code generator which selects a complementary group
`
`from among a plurality of complementary groups obtained by grouping a plurality of
`
`pulse codes generated by at least one code coupling process on at least one basic
`
`code pair as complementary codes every time the transmission count is an integral
`
`multiple of a code count in the plurality of complementary groups (See, e.g., Morita at
`
`Figs. 2, 3, and 5 — 9 and the related text, including [0021 — 52], wherein a pulse code
`
`generator ((210-212), depending on the drawing) selects Spano complementary codes
`
`by generating a transmission signal (a pulse compression code) using a Spano code (A
`
`or B) that is read out of the transmission control unit (210-212) every transmission
`
`cycle); Morita does not expressly disclose how the complementary groups are obtained,
`
`but since the complementary groups are Spano codes, the code coupling process could
`
`reasonably be deemed inherent to Morita; alternatively, Spano teaches a plurality of
`
`complementary groups obtained by grouping a plurality of pulse codes generated by at
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 6
`
`least one code coupling process on at least one basic code pair as complementary
`
`codes (See, e.g., Spano at pp. 330 — 345, wherein the claimed subject matter is shown
`
`and described by the inventor of the Spano codes); and
`
`Morita discloses a transmitter which transmits the pulse codes belonging to the
`
`selected complementary group (See, e.g., Morita at Figs. 2, 3, and 5 — 9 and the related
`
`text, including [0020, 23 -28, 33, 59, 61+], wherein transmitter 230 is shown and
`
`described, the transmitter being configured to transmit the pulse codes for each
`
`selected complementary group).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the effective filing date to provide the teachings of Spano to the radar and method of
`
`Morita because Morita specifically teaches the use of Spano codes in its invention; and
`
`wherein the development and use of eponymous Spano codes in pulse radar systems is
`
`provided by Spano.
`
`With regard to claim 2, as best understood, Morita discloses [that] the pulse
`
`codes belonging to one of the plurality of complementary groups include codes {A, B, B',
`
`A', B, A, A', B) using codes {A, B} generated by the code coupling process and inverse
`
`codes {A ', B7 of the codes {A, B}, and the transmitter transmits all of the pulse codes
`
`belonging to the one of the plurality of complementary groups in a sequence of {A, B, B',
`
`A', B, A, A', B7 (See, e.g., Morita at [0040 — 45], wherein the claimed pulse codes and
`
`the exact sequence are described in the cited text).
`
`With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Morita discloses and Spano
`
`teaches whereinafter sequentially transmitting the pulse codes belonging to a first
`
`complementary group, the transmitter sequentially transmits the pulse codes belonging
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 7
`
`to a second complementary group, the plurality of complementary groups including the
`
`first complementary group and the second complementary group, and a combination of
`
`a first basic code pair and a first code coupling process for generating the first
`
`complementary group is different from a combination of a second basic code pair and a
`
`second code coupling process for generating the second complementary group, the at
`
`least one code coupling process including the first code coupling process and the
`
`second code coupling process, and the at least one basic code pair including the first
`
`basic code pair and the second basic code pair (See, e.g., Morita at Figs. 7-9 and the
`
`related text, including [0062 — 104], wherein the claimed subject matter is shown and
`
`described, e.g., wherein Group A, B, B', A', B, A, A', B' is employed during a first cycle
`
`and C, D, D’, C’, D, C, C’, D’ are employed in a subsequent cycle) (See, e.g., Spano at
`
`pp. 340 — 345, wherein the claimed subject matter is also shown and described).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the effective filing date to provide the teachings of Spano to the radar and method of
`
`Morita because Morita specifically references the use of Spano codes the development
`
`and use of which in pulse radar systems are provided in Spano.
`
`With regard to claim 4, as best understood, Morita discloses and Spano
`
`teaches whereinafter sequentially transmitting the pulse codes belonging to a first
`
`complementary group, the transmitter sequentially transmits the pulse codes belonging
`
`to a second complementary group, the plurality of complementary groups including the
`
`first complementary group and the second complementary group, and a first basic code
`
`pair for generating the first complementary group is different from a second basic code
`
`pair for generating the second complementary group, the at least one basic code pair
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 8
`
`including the first basic code pair and the second basic code pair (See, e.g., Morita at
`
`Figs. 7-9 and the related text, including [0062 — 104], wherein the claimed subject
`
`matter is shown and described, e.g., wherein Group A, B, B', A', B, A, A', B' is employed
`
`during a first cycle and C, D, D’, C’, D, C, C’, D’ are employed in a subsequent cycle)
`
`(See, e.g., Spano at pp. 340 — 345, wherein the claimed subject matter is also shown
`
`and described).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the effective filing date to provide the teachings of Spano to the radar and method of
`
`Morita because Morita specifically references the use of Spano codes the development
`
`and use of which in pulse radar systems are provided in Spano.
`
`With regard to claim 5, as best understood, Morita discloses [that] each of the
`
`pulse codes belonging to the plurality of complementary groups is transmitted at least
`
`once within a total transmission count of the pulse codes in the measurement by the
`
`radar apparatus and a same number of times (See, e.g., Morita at Figs. 6 - 9, and the
`
`related text, wherein each of the pulse codes belonging to the plurality of
`
`complementary groups appears to be transmitted at least once within a total
`
`transmission count of the pulse codes in the measurement by the radar apparatus a
`
`same number of times).
`
`Conclusion
`
`9.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. See: US 20130176166 (Kishigami); US 20130120185
`
`(Kishigami); us 20140111367 (Kishigami); and us 5440311 (Gallagher).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 9
`
`10.
`
`For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in
`
`the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and
`
`consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED
`
`IN ITS ENTIRE TY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEA CH AWAY FROM THE
`
`CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
`
`11.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Daniel P Malley Sr. whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30-6); M-Th (8:30-6).
`
`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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on 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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,884
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 10
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1 000.
`
`/DAN|EL P MALLEY SRJ
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3648
`
`