`Reply to Office Action dated April 29, 2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1—6 will be pending in the present
`
`application. Claims 1, 5 and 6 are amended. Applicant submits that no new matter has been
`
`introduced in the present application by the foregoing amendment. Support for the foregoing
`
`amendment may be found in at least Figure 2 of the present application and its accompanying
`
`description.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter:
`
`Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Applicant thanks
`
`the Examiner for indicating the allowable subject matter but believes broader subject matter is
`
`available.
`
`Claim Rejections , 35 US. C. §1033
`
`Claims 1—4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over
`
`US. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0176590 to Sharonov (hereinafter “Sharonov”)
`
`and US. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0175767 to Tsunekawa (hereinafter
`
`“Tsunekawa”).
`
`At the outset, Applicant believes it is beneficial to discuss an embodiment of the
`
`present application. With reference to Figure 2 of the present application an object detection
`
`device is provided. The object detection device detects a target object using two (or more) radar
`
`devices that sense different areas. A first radar device senses a first area that is part of a target
`
`area and a second radar device senses a second area that is part of the target area. The first and
`
`second areas are different and do not overlap with each other (see areas GAl and GBl in Figures
`
`8 and 9). The first and second areas are evaluated to recognize the target object using the
`
`techniques described in the present application.
`
`Sharonov discloses “dual-radar-beam systems and methods for traffic monitoring”
`
`(11[0004]). Sharonov discloses that “the radars 102A and 102B are positioned to the side of
`
`
`
`Application No. 15/388,218
`Reply to Office Action dated April 29, 2019
`
`roadway 105 are each mounted in a 'side-fire' orientation, i.e., directed generally transverse to the
`
`roadway and generally parallel to each other” (11[0013]).
`
`
`
`3
`3
`
`z‘ *1.
`-
`(
`a“?! NJ
`9!.
`‘f‘
`MW- e,
`,f
`8
`.23!
`“‘3:
`:m “If
`t~
`z‘ w“?
`,3 12%,,» ‘3: L-sg’ a;
`’
`~“
`3
`"
`-"
`
`f:
`‘
`
`9‘
`If»
`2'.r
`385
`
`(a
`3
`
`fig, "i
`
`(Figure 1 of Sharonov)
`
`Per Sharonov, the radars 102A and 102B are positioned side by side and they
`
`detect or sense overlapping areas (their fields of view 104A, 104B overlap). Sharonov relies on
`
`overlapping fields of view 104A and 104B to perform object detection. Sharonov does not
`
`disclose or suggest “a first connection operable to be coupled to afirst radar device that senses a
`
`first area that is part ofa target area, a second connection operable to be coupled to a second
`
`radar device that senses a second area that is part of the target area, wherein the second area
`
`does not overlap with the first area,
`
`second acquisition region extraction circuitry configured
`
`to extract one or more second acquisition regions from among a plurality of second unit regions,
`
`not overlapping with the first unit regions” (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1.
`
`Sharonov is silent on a detection technique for two radars that sense different and
`
`non-overlapping areas.
`
`
`
`Application No. 15/388,218
`Reply to Office Action dated April 29, 2019
`
`Tsunekawa, which discloses moving object detection using a vehicle radar
`
`apparatus, does not cure the deficiencies of Sharonov. Tsunekawa is silent on a detection
`
`technique for two radars that sense different and non-overlapping areas.
`
`Sharonov and Tsunekawa do not disclose the elements of claim 1. Thus, claim 1
`
`is patentable in view of Sharonov and Tsunekawa. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection
`
`of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
`
`Furthermore, claims 2—4 are dependent on claim 1 and are, therefore, patentable
`
`in view of the cited references for at least the same reasons recited above and by virtue of the
`
`additional claim features set forth therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`rejections of claims 2—4 is respectfully requested.
`
`Although not identical in scope or language, the allowability of claim 6 will be
`
`apparent in view of the reasons recited above. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`rejection of claim 6 is respectfully requested.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090.
`
`Respectfully, Applicant submits that the pending claims are allowable. Favorable
`
`consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Baha A. Obeidat/
`
`Baha A. Obeidat
`
`Registration No. 66,827
`
`BAOzdjs
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`676665371
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
