www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/977,322
`
`09/01/2020
`
`Shinzo KOYAMA
`
`092570-0316
`
`6255
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`LEITE, PAULO ROBERTO GONZ
`
`3663
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/01/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime 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):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-11 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 09/01/2020 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)( 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:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin 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 Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230718
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`46/977,322
`KOYAMA, Shinzo
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`PAULO R LEITE
`3663
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom 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, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 09/01/2020.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) 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 Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page2
`
`DETAILEDACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AlAorAIA Status
`
`The presentapplication,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`(a) INGENERAL.—The specification shall contain awritten description of theinvention, and
`of themanner and process of making and usingit, 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 usethe same, and shall set forth the best modecontemplated by the inventor or joint
`inventor of carrying out theinvention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre -AIA35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain awritten description of theinvention, and ofthemanner and
`process of making and usingit, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
`skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which itis most nearly connected, to make and use the
`same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by theinventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph,as failing to
`
`comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not
`
`described inthe specificationin such a wayas to reasonably conveyto one skilled inthe relevantart
`
`that theinventor ora joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s),
`
`atthe time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase “angle of the
`
`object” is not present within the specification of the instant application and therefore lacks description
`
`on what exactly the angle is relative to. For the sake of prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the “angle
`
`of the object” to be the angle between the heading of the host vehicle and the detected vehicle. Please
`
`either specify where the written description for the aforementioned limitationis located oramendthe
`
`s pecification toinclude the proper written description of the limitation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page3
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b}) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall concludewith oneor moreclaimsparticularly pointing out
`and distinctly claiming thesubject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall concludewith oneor moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claim3is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph,as being
`
`indefinite for failingto particularly point outand distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor
`
`ora jointinventor (or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.112, the applicant), regards as the
`
`invention. Examiner is interpreting the “angle of the object” to be the angle between the heading ofthe
`
`host vehicle and the detected vehicle. Please either s pecify where the written description forthe
`
`aforementioned limitation is located oramend thes pecification to include the properwritten
`
`description ofthe limitation.
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 103
`
`Inthe eventthe determination ofthe status of the application as subject to AIA35U.S.C.102
`
`and 103 (oras subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis(i.e., changing from AlA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejectionifthe priorart relied upon, andthe rationale s upporting the rejection, would be the same
`
`undereither status.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for allobviousness rejections
`
`set forthin this Office action:
`
`A patent fora claimed invention may not beobtained, notwithstanding that theclaimed invention is
`not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102,if thedifferences between the claimed invention
`and the prior art are such that theclaimed invention as a whole would havebeen obvious beforethe
`effective filingdate of theclaimed invention to aperson having ordinary skill in theart to which the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page4
`
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not benegated by the mannerin which theinvention
`was made.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishinga background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103 aresummarizedas follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope andcontents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the priorart andthe claims atissue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skillin the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence presentin the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer et
`
`al. (US 20170234976; hereinafter Grauer, already of recordin the IDS), in viewof Walton etal. (US
`
`20030142006; hereinafter Walton).
`
`RegardingClaim 1,
`
`Grauer teaches
`
`An object sensing device for sensing an object, comprising: (Grauer: Abstract)
`
`a lightsource configured to emit light to the object; (Grauer: Paragraph [0023]-[0025])
`
`a sensor configured to obtain animage ofthe object; and (Grauer: Paragraph [0024]-[0025],
`
`[0027])
`
`a processor, wherein (Grauer: Paragraph [0032])
`
`the processor controls, based onthe signal, timing ofemission of the light by the lightsource,
`
`(Grauer: Paragraph [0030] ) and exposure ofthesensor. (Grauer: Paragraph [0027])
`
`Grauer does not teach
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`PageS
`
`a radar configured to emit anelectromagnetic wave to the object and generatea signal
`
`indicating a location ofthe object;
`
`Howeverin the samefield of endeavor, Walton teaches
`
`a radar configured to emit an electromagnetic wave to the object and generate a signal
`
`indicating a location ofthe object; (Walton: Paragraph [0018])
`
`It would be obvious for one with ordinary skillin the art before the effective filling date ofthe
`
`claimed invention to modify the object sensing device with a light source and sensor-based s ystem of
`
`Grauer withthe electromagnetic radar of Walton for the benefit of detecting obstacles inthe pathofa
`
`vehicle. (Walton: Paragraph [0002])
`
`RegardingClaim 4,
`
`Grauer,in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1, wherein
`
`the sensor and thelightsource are mounted in substantially the same housing. (Grauer:
`
`Paragraph [0016], [0024], FIG. 1)
`
`Regarding Claim 5,
`
`Grauer,in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1, wherein
`
`the light source emits diffused light. (Grauer: Paragraph [0049]; The system can emitlight that is
`
`passed through a polarization which meansit is being diffused)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page6
`
`RegardingClaim 8,
`
`Grauer,in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1, wherein
`
`the object sensing device is configured to be mounted ona mobile body. (Grauer: Paragraph
`
`[0002], [0037], FIG. 2)
`
`Regarding Claim 9,
`
`Grauer,in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1, wherein
`
`the light source is configured to illuminatean interior ofthe mobile body, and
`
`the sensorisseparatedfrom the light source. (Grauer: Paragraph [0016], [0024], FIG. 1; The
`
`sensorandthe light source are s eparate components.)
`
`Claim 2 isrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer, in view of Walton,
`
`as appliedto claims1, 4-5, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Kawabeet al. (US 20130241763;
`
`hereinafter Kawabe, already of record in the IDS).
`
`RegardingClaim 2,
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1....
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, does notteach
`
`... wherein
`
`when the radar sensesa plurality ofobjects, the processor controls exposure ofthesensorbased
`
`onthe signal from a closest one ofthe objects.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page7
`
`Howeverin the samefield of endeavor, Kawabe teaches
`
`... wherein
`
`whenthe radar sensesa plurality ofobjects, the processor controls exposure ofthesensorbased
`
`on the signal from a closest oneofthe objects. (Kawabe: Paragraph[0051], [0061]-[0062])
`
`It would be obvious for one with ordinary skillin the art before the effective filling date ofthe
`
`claimed invention to modify the object sensing device of Grauer, inview of Walton, with the exposure
`
`control based onthe multiple object detection of Kawabefor the benefit of improving the accuracy of
`
`detecting a targetexisting at a shortdistance. (Kawabe: Paragraph [0095])
`
`Claim 3 isrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer, in view of Walton,
`
`as appliedtoclaims1, 4-5, 8-9 above, and further in view of Harada (US 20110301845).
`
`Regarding Claim 3,
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1....
`
`based onthe degrees ofrisk, the processor controls the timing and the exposure so asto obtain
`
`imagesoftwoofthe plurality ofobjectsin differentframes. (Grauer: Paragraph [0027], [0039]-[0041];
`
`The system obtains and processes image data taken from things alla round the vehicle. Multiple objects
`
`orvehicles may be present, therefore the system is able to take images of two objects indifferent
`
`frames.)
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, does notteach
`
`...wherein
`
`the signalindicatesa distance between the radar and the object, andan angle ofthe object with
`
`respect tothe radar,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page8
`
`when the radar sensesa plurality ofobjects, the processor calculates a degreeofrisk ofcollision
`
`with eachofthe plurality ofobjects based onthe distance and the angle, and
`
`Howeverin the samefield of endeavor, Harada teaches
`
`...wherein
`
`the signal indicates a distance between the radar and the object, (Harada: Paragraph [0058])
`
`and an angle ofthe object with respect to theradar, (Harada: Paragraph [0013]-[0016], [0091]-[0093])
`
`whenthe radar sensesa plurality ofobjects, (Harada: Paragraph [0056]-[0057]) the processor
`
`calculates a degree ofrisk ofcollision with each ofthe plurality ofobjects based on the distance and the
`
`angle, and (Harada: Paragraph [0118]-[0119])
`
`It would be obvious for one with ordinary skillin the art before the effective filling date ofthe
`
`claimed invention to modify the object sensing device and time and exposure control of Grauer, inview
`
`of Walton, with the degree of risk calculation of multiple targets of Harada for the benefit of predicting a
`
`risk ofan object approaching thevehicle colliding with the vehicle. (Harada: Paragraph [0001])
`
`Claims6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 asbeing unpatentable over Grauer, in view of
`
`Walton, asapplied to claims1, 4-5, and8-9 above, and further in view of Kawazoe etal. (US
`
`20190025409; hereinafter Kawazoe).
`
`RegardingClaim 6,
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1....
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, does notteach
`
`.. Wherein
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page9
`
`the light source causesalinearlight beam to sweepinadirection perpendicular to the linear
`
`light beam based on predetermined timings, and
`
`the sensor performs scan inthe perpendiculardirection.
`
`Howeverin thesamefield of endeavor, Kawazoe teaches
`
`... Wherein
`
`the light source causesalinearlight beam to sweepinadirection perpendicular to the linear
`
`light beam based on predetermined timings, and (Kawazoe: Paragraph [0068])
`
`the sensor performs scan intheperpendiculardirection. (Kawazoe: Paragraph [0068])
`
`It would be obvious for one with ordinary skillin the art before the effective filling date ofthe
`
`claimed invention to modify the object sensing device of Grauer, inview of Walton, with the
`
`perpendicular light beam sweep of Kawazoe for the benefit of detecting an obstacle while limiting the
`
`powerconsumption ofthedevice. (Kawazoe: Paragraph [0008])
`
`Regarding Claim 7,
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, and furtherin view of Kawazoe, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1, wherein
`
`the light source causes a dot-shaped light beam to sweep through a specific region based on
`
`predetermined timings, and (Kawazoe: Paragraph [0015], [0045])
`
`the sensor images only the region. (Grauer: Paragraph [0032]; The imagings ystem only images
`
`of objects present in the target environment.)
`
`The motivation to combine Grauer, in view of Walton, and Kawazoe is the same as stated for
`
`Claim6 above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page10
`
`Claim 10 isrejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Grauer, in view of Walton,
`
`as appliedto claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Shand (US 20190004177).
`
`Regarding Claim 10,
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1....
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, does notteach
`
`...wherein
`
`the light source hasan emission period in the range of10-100ns.
`
`Howeverin the samefield of endeavor, Shand teaches
`
`...wherein
`
`the light source has anemission period in the range of10-100 ns. (Shand: Paragraph [0121])
`
`It would be obvious for one with ordinary skillin the art before the effective filling date ofthe
`
`claimed invention to modify the object sensing device of Grauer, inview of Walton, with the emission
`
`period of Shand for the benefit of detecting information about the environment in which the vehicle
`
`operates. (Shand: Paragraph [0001])
`
`Claim 11isrejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Grauer, in view of Walton,
`
`as appliedto claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Schwarzetal. (US 9971024;
`
`hereinafter Schwarz).
`
`Regarding Claim 11,
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, teaches
`
`The object sensing device ofclaim 1....
`
`Grauer, in view of Walton, does notteach
`
`... Wherein
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Pageil
`
`the light source hasan emission interval in the range of2-10 ps.
`
`Howeverin the samefield of endeavor, Schwarzteaches
`
`... wherein
`
`the light source hasan emission interval in the range of2-10 ps. (Schwarz: Column1, Line 66 —
`
`Column 2, Line 6 and Column 13,Line 5 -10)
`
`It would be obvious for one with ordinary skillin the art before the effective filling date ofthe
`
`claimed invention to modify the object sensing device of Grauer, inview of Walton, with the emission
`
`interval of Schwarzfor the benefit of accurately detecting the distance between the vehicle andan
`
`object. (Schwarz: Column 1, Line 48-56, 62-65)
`
`Conclusion
`
`The prior art made of recordand not relied uponis considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure. Breedet al. (US 20070021915; hereinafter Breed; This reference teachesa collision
`
`avoidance systems that receives signals and analyzes said signals from transmitters equipped on other
`
`vehicles to determine positional data and possible collisions. )and Kim et al. (US 20190056749;
`
`hereinafter Kim; This reference teachesa driving assistance system that consists ofa rotating camera
`
`equippedto a vehicle that cantake multiple images of the vehicles s urroundings. The s ystem then
`
`determinesthe distances between the vehicle and the different objects found insaid images.).
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZLEITE whose telephone number is (5 71)272-5877.
`
`The examiner cannormally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00am-5:00 pm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTOs upplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a n interview,applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request (AIR) at http://www. uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/977 ,322
`Art Unit: 3663
`
`Page12
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Geepy Pecan be reached on 571-270-3703. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceedingis assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from
`
`Patent Center. Unpublished a pplication information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To
`
`file and manage patent submissionsin Patent Center,visit: https ://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Centerand
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfilingin 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.
`
`/P.R.L./
`Examiner, Art Unit 3663
`
`/GeepyPe/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
`7/27/2023
`
`