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 .
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 09/19/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed on 09/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-14 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
1. Applicant’s reliance on the Pre-Appeal Brief Review is misplaced
Applicant argues that “the Board must have found the arguments persuasive,” and therefore the present rejection should likewise be withdrawn. This is not accurate. As explained in MPEP § 1204.02, the Pre-Appeal panel decision is not a merits determination and does not preclude the Examiner from issuing a new ground of rejection based on different prior art. The present §103 rejection is based on newly applied references including Jagmal Singh, and therefore the Pre-Appeal outcome has no bearing on the merits of the present rejection.
2. The argument that the Examiner is “picking and choosing” is not supported
Applicant repeatedly asserts that the Examiner is improperly “picking and choosing isolated disclosures” from the applied references. However, Applicant does not identify:
any specific limitation improperly mapped,
any disclosure that is taken out of context, or
any teaching that contradicts the combination.
A proper rebuttal must identify a specific limitation that is missing from the references.Applicant provides only generalized hindsight allegations, which cannot overcome a prima facie case. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
3. Applicant mischaracterizes the Examiner’s reliance on Jagmal Singh
Applicant argues that Jagmal Singh para 15 is insufficient, but the reference expressly teaches that roadway markers may include paint containing highly reflective particles, including tiny glass grains optimized for IR/LIDAR reflectivity. Applicant’s argument does not contest—nor can it dispute—the fact that this teaching is directly applicable to the claimed reflective marking structures.
The Examiner is therefore permitted to rely on Jagmal Singh as supplying the missing feature. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (references can be combined for what they teach, not whether they were designed to be combined).
4. Applicant’s “Randler already has reflective beacons” argument is not persuasive
Applicant asserts that Randler already uses reflective structures and therefore would not be modified. However:
The reflective beacons in Randler are fixed objects, not line-shaped reflective surfaces as claimed.
Randler does not teach reflective paint, reflective particle coatings, or reflective surface materials used for lane-like or elongated measurement structures.
Substituting one known reflective material (e.g., Jagmal Singh’s paint) for another predictable reflective material is a routine design choice under KSR.
Applicant’s argument does not identify a teaching in Randler that would discourage or prevent the substitution.
5. Applicant’s hindsight arguments are conclusory and unsupported
Applicant cites NTP, Grain Processing, and Fritch for hindsight principles, but provides no factual evidence showing that:
the references are technologically incompatible,
the combination changes the principle of operation,
the combination renders any reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or
one ordinary skilled in the art would lack motivation to combine the known teachings.
Mere recitation of case law does not rebut a properly supported motivation to combine. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“The mere fact that references can be combined does not mean that the combination is improper; rather, improper hindsight must be shown.”).
Applicant provides no such showing.
6. The Examiner’s motivation to combine remains valid and unrebutted
The Office Action provided a clear rationale:
Randler teaches the basic beacon/measurement structure.
Lin and Kaempchen teach roadway measurement geometries and structural lane features.
Jagmal Singh teaches reflective paint materials optimized for LIDAR detection.
Weber teaches reflective surface enhancements.
The combination yields precisely the predictable improvement expected by one ordinary skilled in the art —line-shaped reflective measurement structures constructed with known IR-reflective materials.
Applicant has not presented evidence that this rationale is improper under KSR.
7. Applicant does not identify any specific claim limitation that is missing from the applied art
Applicant never points to a claim element that is:
absent from the references,
incorrectly interpreted, or
unsupported by the mapping.
Instead, Applicant offers only policy arguments and conclusory hindsight assertions. Such arguments do not satisfy the requirement to identify specific deficiencies. See In re Lovin.
8. Conclusion
Since Applicant’s remarks:
do not show that any limitation is missing,
do not undermine the Examiner’s articulated rationale to combine,
do not demonstrate technical incompatibility, and
do not rebut the specific teachings of Jagmal Singh,
the arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is therefore maintained.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler et al. (EP 1947473 A2) in view of Lin et al. (DE 102015112297 A1), Kaempchen et al. (DE 102004033114 A1) and Jagmal Singh1 et al. (US 20190094347 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Randler teaches a method for determining at least one angular position of an optoelectronic sensor of a motor vehicle (abstract, page 2 para [3]- [5]), the method comprising:
activating the optoelectronic sensor (Figs. 1-2) which comprises:
at least one transmitter device (Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar ),
at least one receiver unit (Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar) (with at least two receiver elements which include a first receiver element and a second receiver element),
at least one sensor image (the received light beams that detects then converts by the receiver is used to form an image sensor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor#:~:text=An%20image%20sensor%20or%20imager,current%20that%20convey%20the%20information. ), and
at least one evaluation unit (Para [5] to determine a misalignment of the sensor an evaluation unit is necessary. Also, in Lidar sensor it is well-known to have a processing unit or an evaluation unit to determine position/orientation of an object or the lidar sensor);
emitting light beams, into surroundings of the motor vehicle, by the at least one transmitter device ((Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar );
receiving light beams, reflected at an object, by the at least one receiver unit (Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar),
wherein the light beams reflected at the object are represented, by the at least one evaluation unit, as scan points in the at least one sensor image, and wherein each one of the scan points is assigned to one of the at least two receiver elements (Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. LIDAR may operate in a fixed direction (e.g., vertical) or it may scan multiple directions, in which case it is known as LIDAR scanning or 3D laser scanning, a special combination of 3-D scanning and laser scanning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar);
recognizing at least two line-shaped measurement structures which include a line-shaped first measurement structure and a line-shaped second measurement structure, arranged parallel to and at a distance from one another, in the at least one sensor image for determining the at least one angular position (Page 4, paragraph [1], figs. 1- 2, On the left side strip 9 of the measuring section 4 stationary beacons 10 are consecutively arranged in line and on the right side strip 11 of the measuring section 4 more stationary beacons 12 are arranged one behind the other in line);
wherein at least one angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor is determined using the first line-shaped measurement structure and the second line-shaped measurement structure (Page 4 para 1 Since the evaluation of the distance radar 2, the position of the beacons 10, 12 is known in the coordinate system, the misalignment of the sensor 2 can be determined via an averaging of the misalignment 18. See also, page 2 para 2, If the motor vehicle travels in the middle of the center of the carriageway, then the position of individual, two beacons facing one another at the same height or several beacons can be determined and a misalignment of the sensor calculated therefrom.);
wherein the optoelectronic sensor is calibrated based on the at least one angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor (Page 4 para 1 Since the evaluation of the distance radar 2, the position of the beacons 10, 12 is known in the coordinate system, the misalignment of the sensor 2 can be determined via an averaging of the misalignment 18. See also, page 2 para 2, If the motor vehicle travels in the middle of the center of the carriageway, then the position of individual, two beacons facing one another at the same height or several beacons can be determined and a misalignment of the sensor calculated therefrom.).
Randler fails to explicitly teach but Lin teaches a receiver unit with at least two receiver elements which include a first receiver element and a second receiver element (Fig. 1 shows at least 2 receiver elements 12. See also, para 39 lines 497-498, The receiving device 6 has a plurality of receiving elements 12).
It would have been obvious to modify Randler’s Lidar system, in view of Lin, to include at least another sensor. By providing at least two receiving elements results in the advantage that each receiving element has a narrower detection range or field of view compared to a receiving device with only one receiving element, which in particular has an area similar in size to a common area of the at least two receiving elements. The narrowed detection range reduces the proportion of interference signals, particularly sunlight, from different directions, thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the optical sensor device (Lin para 13).
Randler also fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor comprises:
a yaw angle defined as a rotation of the optoelectronic sensor about a vertical axis of the motor vehicle, and a pitch angle defined as a rotation of the optoelectronic sensor about a transverse axis of the motor vehicle.
However, Kaempchen in page 11 para [6] teaches the axes of the coordinate systems of the laser scanner or camera coordinate system are generally rotated with respect to the corresponding axes of the vehicle coordinate system. With the laser scanner coordinate system, the scanning surfaces are tilted in the same way relative to the vehicle longitudinal and transverse axes. The orientation is described by pitch angle and roll angle. Furthermore, the coordinate systems are rotated by a yaw angle.
It would have been obvious to combine Randler’s Lidar sensor with Kaempchen because it will be more accurately reduce measurement errors and misalignment.
Randler fails to explicitly teach wherein the first line-shaped measurement structure and the second line-shaped measurement structure consist of paint containing highly reflective particles.
However, Singh in para 15 teaches that markers can be made of a material that is highly reflective to the infrared light of the LIDAR such as by using road marking paint with tiny glass grain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to paint the beacons of Randler using high reflective paint as taught by Singh. Doing will be less expensive than remove and replace all beacons in Randle so reducing costs and operation time.
Regarding claim 8, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein motor vehicle is at a standstill when the at least one angular position is determined (Randler, Page 2, para [6] (last paragraph) teaches determining the position while the vehicle is moving (speed of the vehicle is not 0).
Regarding claim 9, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle is in motion while the at least one angular position is determined (Randler, Page 2, para [6] (last paragraph) teaches determining the position while the vehicle is moving (speed of the vehicle is not 0)).
Regarding claim 10, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least two markings on a ground, on which the motor vehicle is situated, are captured as parallel measurement structures in the surroundings (Randler, Fig. 2, beacons 10 and 12, Page 3 last paragraph and page 4 para [1]).
Regarding claim 11, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least two parallel walls are captured as parallel measurement structures in the surroundings (Kaempchen, Figs. 12-13, parallel walls 64, page 16, para [1])).
Randler uses two markings on a ground to calibrate an electromagnetic radiation sensor held on a vehicle and Kaempchen uses 2 parallel walls to at least partially calibrate an electromagnetic radiation distance image sensor held on a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that both methods may be used to calibrate (same function) a sensor and it just a design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Randler teaches a test stand (Fig. 2, beacon lines 10 and 12) for determining at least one angular position of an optoelectronic sensor of a motor vehicle (abstract, page 2 para [3]- [5]), comprising:
at least one first line-shaped measurement structure and at least one second line-shaped measurement structure (Page 4, paragraph [1], fig. 2, On the left side strip 9 of the measuring section 4 stationary beacons 10 are consecutively arranged in line and on the right side strip 11 of the measuring section 4 more stationary beacons 12 are arranged one behind the other in line), which are arranged at a distance from and parallel to one another (Fig. 12, Beacon line 10 is parallel to beacon line 12);
wherein the optoelectronic sensor (Para [5], LIDAR) comprises:
at least one transmitter device (Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar ),
at least one receiver unit ((Para [5], LIDAR, Lidar ("light detection and ranging" or "laser imaging, detection, and ranging") is a method for determining ranges by targeting an object or a surface with a laser and measuring the time for the reflected light to return to the receiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar)) (with at least two receiver elements), and
at least one evaluation unit (Para [5] to determine a misalignment of the sensor an evaluation unit is necessary. Also, in Lidar sensor it is well-known to have a processing unit or an evaluation unit to determine position/orientation of an object or the lidar sensor).
Randler fails to explicitly teach but Lin teaches a receiver unit with at least two receiver elements which include a first receiver element and a second receiver element (Fig. 1 shows at least 2 receiver elements 12. See also, para 39 lines 497-498, The receiving device 6 has a plurality of receiving elements 12).
It would have been obvious to modify Randler’s Lidar system, in view of Lin, to include at least another sensor. By providing at least two receiving elements results in the advantage that each receiving element has a narrower detection range or field of view compared to a receiving device with only one receiving element, which in particular has an area similar in size to a common area of the at least two receiving elements. 178 The narrowed detection range reduces the proportion of interference signals, particularly sunlight, from different directions, thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the optical sensor device (Lin para 13).
Randler also fails to explicitly teach wherein a yaw angle is determined as an angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor and is defined as a rotation of the optoelectronic sensor about a vertical axis of the motor vehicle and
wherein a pitch angle is determined as an angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor and is defined as a rotation of the optoelectronic sensor about a transverse axis of the motor vehicle.
However, Kaempchen in page 11 para [6] teaches the axes of the coordinate systems of the laser scanner or camera coordinate system are generally rotated with respect to the corresponding axes of the vehicle coordinate system. With the laser scanner coordinate system, the scanning surfaces are tilted in the same way relative to the vehicle longitudinal and transverse axes. The orientation is described by pitch angle and roll angle. Furthermore, the coordinate systems are rotated by a yaw angle.
It would have been obvious to combine Randler’s Lidar sensor with Kaempchen because it will be more accurately reduce measurement errors and misalignment.
Randler fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one first line-shaped measurement structure and the at least one second line-shaped measurement structure consist of paint containing highly reflective particles.
However, Singh in para 15 teaches that markers can be made of a material that is highly reflective to the infrared light of the LIDAR such as by using road marking paint with tiny glass grain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to paint the beacons of Randler using high reflective paint as taught by Singh. Doing will be less expensive than remove and replace all beacons in Randle so reducing costs and operation time.
Regarding claim 13, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, teaches the test stand according to claim 12, wherein the at least one first line- shaped measurement structure and the at least one second line-shaped measurement structure are parallel, spaced apart markings on a ground in surroundings of the motor vehicle (Randler, Fig. 2, beacons 10 and 12, Page 3 last paragraph and page 4 para [1]).
Regarding claim 14, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, teaches the test stand according to claim 12, wherein the at least one first line- shaped measurement structure and the at least one second line-shaped measurement structure are parallel, spaced apart walls in surroundings of the motor vehicle (Kaempchen, Figs. 12-13, parallel walls 64, page 16, para [1]).
Randler uses two markings on a ground to calibrate an electromagnetic radiation sensor held on a vehicle and Kaempchen uses 2 parallel walls to at least partially calibrate an electromagnetic radiation distance image sensor held on a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that both methods may be used to calibrate (same function) a sensor and it just a design choice.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler et al. (EP 1947473 A2) in view of Lin et al. (DE 102015112297 A1), Kaempchen et al. (DE 102004033114 A1), Singh and Higashida et al. (JP 2001166051 A).
Regarding claim 2, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh, fails to explicitly teach but Higashida teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a sensor coordinate system is determined in the at least one sensor image using at least two scan points assigned to the first receiver element, and a reference coordinate system is determined in the at least one sensor image using at least one scan point of the first receiver element and at least one scan point assigned to the second receiver element,
wherein the at least two scan points which determine the sensor coordinate system and the at least two scan points which form the reference coordinate system are assigned to the at least two line-shaped measurement structures in the at least one sensor image, and wherein the at least one angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor is determined, by comparing the sensor coordinate system with the reference coordinate system (Page 8, para [6]-[12] teaches determine the axial deviation angle theta (the angle deviation) by the inclination k of the virtual straight line yLb (the scanning point straight line) connecting the detection position 46 with respect to a straight line (a reference straight line) parallel to the axial line 21 of the vehicle 13).
It would have been obvious to combine Randler’s Lidar sensor with Higashida because it does no more than predictable results of more accurately reducing errors and misalignment.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler et al. (EP 1947473 A2) in view of Lin et al. (DE 102015112297 A1), Kaempchen et al. (DE 102004033114 A1), Jagmal Singh et al. (US 20190094347 A1) and Weber et al. (EP 3176606 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh fails to explicitly but Weber teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor further comprises a roll angle positioned between at least one scan axis and a reference axis of the optoelectronic sensor (Weber, page 8, para [3] when the laser scanner 10…. para [4] in case 1 to 3 and last paragraph) and
wherein the at least one scan axis is formed by at least one scan point of the first measurement structure and at least one scan point of the second measurement structure (Randler, Page 4, para [1]. See also, page 3, para [10] (last paragraph) and description in page 1).
Regarding claim 6, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen, Singh and Weber, teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the roll angle of the optoelectronic sensor is determined as angular deviation (Weber, page 8, para [3] when the laser scanner 10…. para [4] in case 1 to 3 and last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to combine Randler’s Lidar sensor with Weber because it will be more accurately reduce measurement errors and misalignment.
Regarding claim 7, Randler, as modified in view of Lin, Kaempchen and Singh fails to explicitly but Weber teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one angular deviation of the optoelectronic sensor further comprises a yaw angle determined as first angular deviation and/or a pitch angle determined as a second angular deviation, and
a third angular deviation determined as roll angle after determining the yaw angle and/or the pitch angle (Weber, page 8, para [3] when the laser scanner 10…. para [4] in case 1 to 3 and last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to combine Randler’s Lidar sensor with Weber because it will be more accurately reduce errors and misalignment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 The citation used for Jagmal Singh et al. (US 20190094347 A1) is supported by provisional application No. 62/563737 filed on Sept 27, 2017.
Prosecution Insights