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
`
`15/605,645
`
`05/25/2017
`
`NORIAKI SAITO
`
`731156617
`
`5443
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`MOORE” WHITNEY
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3646
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/06/2019
`
`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.
`15/605,645
`Examiner
`WHITNEY T MOORE
`
`Applicant(s)
`SAITO, NORIAKI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) 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 25 May 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 aflowabie. 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 25 May 2017 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:
`
`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 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 20190531
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/605,645
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`Priority
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 25 May 2017. The references have been
`
`considered.
`
`Specification
`
`The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Correction is
`
`required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
`
`Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
`
`The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a
`
`separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the
`
`disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full
`
`patent text for details.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/605,645
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 3
`
`The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the
`
`title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,”
`
`“The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition,
`
`the form
`
`and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be
`
`avoided.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`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)(l) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or
`otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`Kishida et al. (Kishida, US PGPub 2010/0033365).
`
`Referring to Claim 1, Kishida teaches a transmission processor (Fig. 3A #30; [@032] and
`
`{@341}, which.
`
`in operation, transmits first wave signals from inside of a bumper of a vehicle
`
`toward t‘nitside, the transinr'sslrm processor being provided inside of the bumper; a reception
`
`processor (Fig. 3A #St}; [0032] and [@34D3 ‘tt'hich, in operation, receives an object—reflected
`
`wave signal that is a reflection of the first wave signals by a target in an area around the vehicle,
`
`a. linn'iperurei’iectied wave signal that is a reflection of the first wave signais by the bumper, and a
`
`transmission and. reception lea}; signal of the first wave signals and detects the target l’l’tl’tjugl’l
`
`tl'ie
`
`elated—reflected wave signal {[0032~0035]); and a bumper determiner (Fig. 3A #H; [0934—
`
`00549, which,
`
`in operation, detects a first reception level of a second wave signai including the
`
`bninpenretlectet’i wave signal and the transrriission fii'1€.it‘f:t':6pti0ii
`
`leak signal. eornpares the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/605,645
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 4
`
`reeeptinn level with a tl'ireshold, and detenniries the presence of a, had hamper state (x raining
`
`[0033]) in a ease where the first reeeptien level is higher than the tla‘eshehi
`
`Re”erring te Claim 2, Kishida teaches wherein the hamper determiner,
`
`in operatien,
`
`calculates the threshold on the basis of a reception level of the transmission and receptien leak
`
`signal of the second wave signal; {00340054},
`
`Re”erring te Claim 5, Kishida teaches transmitting first wave signals from inside of a
`
`hamper of a vehicle toward outside; receiving an object-reflected wave signal that is a reflectieh
`
`of the first wave signals by a target in an area arnnhd the vehicle, a hnmpenretlected wave signal
`
`that is a refleetien of the first wave signals by the bumper, and a transmissien and reeeptien leak
`
`signal of the first wave signals; detecting the target through the ehieet-refleeted wave signal;
`
`detecting a first: reception level of a second wave signal including the l’Bttfilpfiflt’Eflfictfit'l wave
`
`signal and the transmission and receptitm leak signal; comparing the first reeeptinri level with a
`
`threshold; and determining the presence ef a had hamper state in a case where the first reeeptien
`
`level is higher than the threshold; See above citatiens from Claims t and '2.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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, notwithstandingthat 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.
`
`Claim 3 is/are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida.
`
`Referring to Claim 3, Kisliitia teaches the hamper determiner, in eperatien, selects a
`
`tianshiissinn t‘lii“=:ctiioii.. but does net explicitly disclose nor limit
`
`the directinn having a lnwest
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/605,645
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 5
`
`teeeptien level (if the transrnissien and receptitnr leak signal at the secenrl wave signal anteng a
`
`plurality 0f transmission directions used in beam forming,
`
`the transnnssien preeesser, in
`
`eperatien, switches the selected transmission directien .
`
`However, Kishida teaches that the radar transceiver is configured to be capable of
`
`varying a directivity of the transmission signal or the reception signal; see Claim 5 for example.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention to modify Kishida with the desired direction parameters as a
`
`way to optimize the radar system as Kishida teaches various modifications can be made.
`
`Claim 4 is/are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida in
`
`View of Schneider et al. (Schneider, US PGPub 2013/0141269).
`
`Referring to Claim 4, Kishida teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly
`
`disclose nor limit an adherent determiner, which, in nperationl determines the presenee er
`
`absence efextraneens niatter having adhered tn the hnmner; and an entpnt centreller ,which, in
`
`operation, determines the presence at ahsence at the had bumper state with reference tn a
`
`determination result yielded by the bumper determiner and a determinatien result yielded by the
`
`adherent determiner.
`
`l-lr‘awever, Schneider teaches analyzing the current: state (if the harnper in Order tn auto—
`
`ealihrate senser parameters based on transntissinn pet‘l‘erntance; {0032},
`
`Therelere it would have been obvious tn one ef erdinary shill
`
`in the art hefnre the
`
`effective filing date Of the inventlnn tn nindify Kishida with the analysis as taught hy Schneider
`
`so degradation effects of the sensor can be detected and recalibrated.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/605,645
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 6
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270—
`
`3338. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday—Friday from 7am—4pm.
`
`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
`
`htth/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272—6878. 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 htth/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.
`
`/WHITNEY MOORE/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
`
`