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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/6/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the cited U.S. patent publication entry is missing publication data and inventor(s). It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an object information acquisition unit configured to repeatedly acquire..”;
“a roadside object extraction unit configured to extract”…; and
“an axis deviation angle estimation unit configured to estimate…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is found described at page 9 of the specification (e.g. processor) and throughout the specification (algorithm) in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 7-9 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,228,681. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims clearly anticipate the pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Concerning claim 8, the claim requires map information to be “used”, “when map information indicating the travel path and an area around the travel path includes information on a position of the roadside object”. However the claim is directed to a radar device; no map information is previously introduced. It is not clear if map information does in fact “indicate” as claimed, or what limitation this condition puts on the radar itself. Is it the intent that the radar device includes stored map information? The metes and bounds of the limitation imposed on the radar by the “wherein” statement are not clear.
Similarly concerning claim 9, the claim requires “the vertical axis deviation angle is estimated when the radar device includes a front radar device… and a rear radar device”. With the use of “when”, it is not clear if the radar device does in fact include front and rear radar devices. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as though they are required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Breddermann et al. (US 2022/0349995).
Concerning claim 1, Breddermann discloses a radar device comprising at least computer (300) and corresponding software ([0042]) to implement the claimed axis deviation estimation device for estimating an axis deviation of the radar device when the radar device is mounted on a moving object, the radar device comprising: an object information acquisition unit configured to (0035]) repeatedly acquire object information including an object distance (105) and an object azimuth angle (106), the object distance being a distance between the radar device and a reflection object corresponding to a reflection point of a radar wave that is detected by the radar device, the object azimuth angle being an azimuth angle at which the reflection object is located (notably, while Breddermann emphasizes elevation angle, it is implicitly taught that azimuth information is likewise acquired, e.g. at least in the embodiment where a reference object such as a guardrail on the side of the road is detected over time, as without resolution in azimuth it would not be possible to associate reflections as being from the same reference object, [0038], [0020]; a conventional feature of vehicle FMCW radar [0036]);
a roadside object extraction unit configured to extract roadside object information from the object information based on a predetermined extraction condition, the roadside object information being information on the reflection point on a roadside object provided in accordance with a predetermined condition on a side of a travel path at a higher position than the travel path in a direction in which the travel path extends, the travel path being a path in which the moving object travels ([0020]; “Furthermore, the reference object can be such an object for which the elevation angle (which is to say the direction of the object) is greater than 0, and thus above the vehicle.”; and
an axis deviation angle estimation unit configured to estimate a vertical axis deviation angle from the roadside object information including information on a plurality of the reflection points, the vertical axis deviation angle being an angle of deviation of an actual mounting direction from a reference mounting direction in a vertical direction, the actual mounting direction being an actual direction of the radar device, the reference mounting direction being a direction of the radar device when the radar device is mounted in a reference state ([0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Breddermann discloses the claimed constant position in a height direction ([0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Breddermann performs the claimed straight line approximation (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Breddermann discloses estimating when the moving object is traveling in a straight line ([0020]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breddermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Treptow et al. (US2016/0161597).
Breddermann is not found to disclose weighting roadside object information located more than a predetermined distance away from the moving object. Treptow discloses determining elevation axis deviation by weighting information on objects more that a predetermined distance away (e.g. [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to weight information more than a preset distance away in the invention of Breddermann to ensure reflections from objects such as a trailer of the moving vehicle or other unwanted sources are not mistakenly used for deviation estimation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breddermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shingyoji (US2010/0295722)
Breddermann is not found to indicate that when a degree of variation in position of reflection points on the roadside object is a predetermined value or more the axis deviation estimation unit is configured not to determine the deviation angle. However, determining variation in data and refraining from making calculations based on highly variable data was a well known concept demonstrated for example by in a vehicle radar application by Shingyoji ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Breddermann to determine variation in the position of the reflection points and not to estimate the deviation angle when it is above a predetermined value so as not to generate erroneous angle corrections, e.g. due to multiple reflections as demonstrated by Shingyoji with predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breddermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maucher et al. (US 2021/0303879).
Breddermann does not disclose map information used to extract the roadside object information. However, employing maps, including guard rails to support vehicle sensing systems was a known practice as demonstrated by Maucher (e.g. [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include map information in extracting the roadside object information of Breddermann with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve processing with knowledge of the surface of the reflection object as suggested by Maucher ([0016]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breddermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuriyama et al. (US 2022/0289245).
Breddermann discloses a rear radar device and is not found to disclose that the radar device includes both a front and a side radar. Kuriyama discloses a similar radar axis deviation estimation device which also relies on stationary objects such as guardrails. Kuriyama discloses both front and side radars (10A, 10B; Fig 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to add front and side radar devices to the radar device of Breddermann for the conventional advantage of monitoring the entire vehicle periphery (Kuriyama [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to axis deviation angle estimation in the area of vehicle sensor technology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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 at 571-273-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646