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
`
`15/039,877
`
`05/27/2016
`
`Tatsuo MASUDA
`
`HOKUP0323WOUS
`
`4297
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 15
`
`WINDRICHMARCUS E
`
`ART UNIT
`3646
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/14/2018
`
`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):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/039,877
`Examiner
`MARCUS E WINDRICH
`
`Applicant(s)
`MASU DA, Tatsuo
`Art Unit
`AIA Status
`3646
`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
`[: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)C] 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.
`
`[:1 Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[j Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`C] 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
`
`httpfiwww.usptogovlpatentslinit_events[pph[index.'§p or send an inquiry to PPeredhagk@usptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10). The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 5—27—2016 is/are: a). accepted or b)C] 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)I:J Some”
`
`c)C] 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 Date_
`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 20180910
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`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.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`2.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5-27-2016 is being
`
`considered by the examiner.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 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.
`
`As per claim 2, the phrase “determining that the recognizer is likely to cause a
`
`false detection” makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear how this determining occurs
`
`or what data is being processed. It is also unclear what defines a “likely” false detection.
`
`As per claim 3, the phrase “collect information” makes the claim indefinite as it is
`
`unclear what information is being collected or how it is used in the determination.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 3
`
`As per claims 6 and 7, the both depend from claim 1 which makes no mention of
`
`threshold. Therefore the language “second threshold value” and “third threshold value”
`
`are indefinite as it is unclear what the first threshold value was or how it relates to the
`
`second and third in regards to the decision making of the device.
`
`Examiner’s Note: 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 ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH
`
`AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 4
`
`7.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 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 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Wang, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0096662, published
`
`April 16, 2009 in view of Watts, U.S. Patent Number 7,990,309, published August 2,
`
`2011.
`
`As per claim 1, Wang discloses a signal processing device comprising:
`
`a frequency analyzer configured to convert a sensor signal which is outputted
`
`from a sensor for receiving a wireless signal reflected by an object and depends on
`
`motion of the object, into a frequency domain signal, and extract, by use of a group of
`
`individual filter banks with different frequency bands, signals of the individual filter banks
`
`from the frequency domain signal (Wang, 1176-77 and Fig. 1);
`
`a recognizer configured to perform a recognition process of detecting the object
`
`based on at least one of a frequency distribution based on the signals of the individual
`
`filter banks and a component ratio of signal intensities based on the signals of the
`
`individual filter banks (Wang, 1176-77 where targets are detected);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 5
`
`a level setter configured to set a sensitivity level indicative of a degree of
`
`detection sensitivity of the object for the recognition process (Wang, 1176 using STC);
`
`a parameter adjuster configured to change a parameter for adjusting the
`
`detection sensitivity of the object for the recognition process (Wang, 1176 where STC
`
`adjusts and 1103 using CFAR),
`
`the parameter adjuster being configured to set the parameter to increase the
`
`detection sensitivity of the object when the sensitivity level set by the level setter is a
`
`high level, and being configured to set the parameter to decrease the detection
`
`sensitivity of the object when the sensitivity level set by the level setter is a low level
`
`(Wang, 1176 where STC adjusts and 1103 using CFAR).
`
`Though Wang is using STC and CFAR he does not expressly disclose adjusting
`
`to increase and decrease sensitivity based on the level.
`
`Watts teaches adjustment of a level to increase or decrease sensitivity based on
`
`the number of false alarms (Col. 5, lines 20-25).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to adjust level based on sensitivity in order to gain the benefit of reducing
`
`false alarms and increasing detection as taught by Watts (Col. 5, lines 20-25).
`
`As per claim 2, Wang as modified by Watts discloses the signal processing
`
`device of claim 1, wherein the level setter is configured to set the sensitivity level to the
`
`low level when determining that the recognizer is likely to cause false detection, and is
`
`configured to set the sensitivity level to the high level when determining that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 6
`
`recognizer is not likely to cause the false detection (Wang, 1178 where different levels
`
`are based on clutter presence).
`
`As per claim 3, Wang as modified by Watts further discloses the signal
`
`processing device of claim 2, wherein the level setter is configured to collect information
`
`for determining whether the recognizer is likely to cause the false detection, irrespective
`
`of operations of the parameter adjuster and the recognizer (Wang, 1176 where the STC
`
`operates independently of the CFAR).
`
`As per claim 4, Wang as modified by Watts further discloses the signal
`
`processing device of claim 1, wherein the level setter is configured to change the
`
`sensitivity level while the recognizer does not perform the recognition process, and is
`
`configured not to change the sensitivity level while the recognizer performs the
`
`recognition process (Wang, 1176 where STC changes do not affect the CFAR as
`
`sensitivity adjustment is made before CFAR processing).
`
`As per claims 5-7, Wang as modified by Watts further disclose filter bank signals
`
`compared to various thresholds (Wang, 1112 using peak detections and 1108 using
`
`multiple thresholds) and then thresholds are adjusted (Watts, Col. 5, lines 20-25).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the threshold
`
`crossing limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 7
`
`conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable
`
`ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
`
`In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
`
`The examiner submits that threshold comparison and adjustment during target
`
`detection and processing are a normal part of radar STC and CFAR processing.
`
`As per claim 8, Wang as modified by Watts further discloses The signal
`
`processing device of claim 1any one of claims 1 to 7, further comprising a normalizer
`
`configured to normalize intensities of the signals individually passing through the
`
`individual filter banks by a sum of the signals extracted by the frequency analyzer or a
`
`sum of intensities of signals individually passing through predetermined filter banks
`
`selected from the individual filter banks to obtain normalized intensities, and output the
`
`normalized intensities, the recognizer being configured to perform the recognition
`
`process of detecting the object based on at least one of a frequency distribution and a
`
`component ratio of the normalized intensities which are calculated from the normalized
`
`intensities of the individual filter banks outputted from the normalizer (Wang, 11106).
`
`Conclusion
`
`9.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure and is provided in form PTO-892.
`
`10.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F ~7-3:30.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/039,877
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 8
`
`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, Jack Keith can be reached on 5712726878. 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.
`
`/MARCUS E WINDRICH/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
`
`