DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1-18 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 15, it is unclear of how and what manner “a limit value” as claimed is determined.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
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)(1) 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haran (IDS reference – US 2017/0365171).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Haran discloses a method for validating an assumed position (P1) of a vehicle (Abstract), comprising:
receiving, with a receiver of the vehicle a V2X message transmitted by a transmitter ([0025]); and
determining a position of the transmitter from the V2X message (Fig 5 – step 500; [0040]), in that local environmental geodata comprising a positioning of a number of stationary objects are made available, wherein a signal path (x) of the V2X message is simulated based on the position of the transmitter and taking into account the environmental geodata and the assumed vehicle position, wherein at least one simulated physical received signal property is determined from the simulated signal path and the assumed vehicle position (Fig 5 – step 504; [0041]-[0052]), in that at least one actual physical received signal property of the V2X message is determined upon reception of the V2X message (Fig 5 – steps 506-508; [0053]-[0054]), and in that the assumed vehicle position is validated, if the at least one simulated physical received signal property differs from the at least one actual physical received signal property by less than a limit value (Fig 5 – steps 510-516; [0055]-[0057]).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Haran discloses taking into account a reflection of the V2X message at the stationary objects when simulating the signal path (x) (Fig 5 – step 504; [0037]; [0041]-[0052]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 5, Haran discloses determining an actual received signal strength as at least one physical received signal property, and determining a simulated received signal strength as at least one simulated physical received signal property (Fig 5 – step 506; [0053]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 6, Haran discloses the transmitter position is directly contained in the V2X message (Fig 5 – step 500; [0040]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 7, Haran discloses deriving the transmitter position from information contained in the V2X message (Fig 5 – step 500; [0040]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 8, Haran discloses declaring the assumed vehicle position invalid, if the at least one simulated physical received signal property differs from the at least one actual physical received signal property by at least the limit value (G) (Fig 5 – steps 510-516; [0055]-[0057]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 9, Haran discloses marking a position-determination unit (16) which is determining the assumed vehicle position as unreliable, if the assumed vehicle position is declared invalid (Fig 2; [0036]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 10, Haran discloses marking a satellite navigation system which is providing a position signal to the position-determination unit for determining the assumed vehicle position as unreliable, if the assumed vehicle position is declared invalid. (Fig 2; [0036]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 11, Haran discloses carrying out the validation multiple times (i.e. continuous plausibility check) (Fig 5). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 12, Haran discloses determining the actual vehicle position using the local environmental geodata and actual physical received signal properties of the V2X message and comparing the actual vehicle position compared with the assumed vehicle position of the transmitter (Fig 5 – step 516; [0057]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 13, Haran discloses the V2X message is a V2V message, preferably a common awareness message ([0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Haran discloses simulating the simulated signal path by using a model selected form the group consisting of a physical model, a stochastic model, and approximation methods based on machine learning ([0040]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Haran discloses simulating the simulated physical received signal property by using a model selected from the group consisting of a physical model, a stochastic model, and approximation methods based on machine learning ([0040]-[0051]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haran.
Regarding claims 17-18, Haran does not explicitly disclose taking into account a diffraction or an absorption of the V2X message at the stationary objects, when simulating the signal path as claimed. Instead, Haran teaches in the same field of endeavor taking into account a diffraction or an absorption of the V2X message at the stationary objects, when simulating the signal path (Fig 5 – step 504; [0037]; [0041]-[0052]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to taking into account a diffraction or an absorption of the V2X message at the stationary objects, when simulating the signal path as claimed, since Applicant has not disclose that such claimed subject matter solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with taking into account a diffraction or an absorption of the V2X message at the stationary objects, when simulating the signal path as taught by Haran for properly determining the position of a vehicle. While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Claim 15 is allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejection must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0193303 discloses a method for data acquisition in a vehicle, comprising at least one data acquisition unit and at least one processing unit, wherein the at least one data acquisition unit records at least one vehicle data record that is marked by at least one protected vehicle data record. The vehicle data is modified on the basis of a degree of anonymity by a preprocessing operation in the processing unit and is stored as secure vehicle data such that it is impossible to draw conclusions about the protected vehicle data.
US 2023/0422006 discloses a method for validating a V2X message sent by a transmitter and received by a receiver, wherein the receiver is arranged on a vehicle and at least one actual physical received signal property of the V2X message is determined when the V2X message is received, and wherein from the V2X message a purported transmitter position of the transmitter is determined. Furthermore, the present invention relates to a validation device for validating a V2X message sent by a transmitter and received by a receiver arranged on a vehicle, comprising an extraction unit which is configured to determine from the V2X message a purported transmitter position of the transmitter, wherein an analysis unit is provided, which is designed to determine at least one actual physical received signal property when the V2X message is received.
US 12,238,620 discloses a method for transmitting a plurality of pieces of CAM information in a V2X system. More specifically, the method, which is to be performed by a vehicle, includes: a step for transmitting a first message, including first information indicating whether a plurality of pieces of CAM information can be combined, to a base station through a first interface; a step for receiving, from the base station, a second message requesting that the plurality of pieces of CAM information be combined and transmitted; a step for receiving the plurality of pieces of CAM information from nearby vehicles through a second interface; and a step for transmitting a third message including the plurality of pieces of CAM information to the base station through the first interface.
US 11,474,235 discloses techniques for allowing one or more vehicles or radar systems in an environment to passively detect radar signals from other vehicles or other radar systems and determine spatial parameters of objects based on the passively received radar signals. A primary vehicle (or user equipment (UE) associated with the primary vehicle) may be configured to receive one or more radar signals from one or more secondary vehicles (or UEs associated with the secondary vehicles). The primary vehicle may be configured to determine one or more spatial parameters of the secondary vehicle based on the passively received radar signals. In some cases, the primary vehicle may receive an indication that identifies at least some communication resources to be used by the secondary vehicle to transmit the radar signals. The primary vehicle may determine one or more driving operations based on determining the spatial parameter.
US 10,120,003 discloses system and methods for plausibility check in vehicle-to-everything dynamic environments in which a local vehicle communicates with remote vehicles. The system comprises means for obtaining a measured RSSI from a specific remote vehicle, and a modified plausibility check unit configurable and operable to apply a dynamic RSSI model to detect implausible positioning of the specific remote vehicle and/or of the local vehicle based on the measured RSSI of the specific remote vehicle and on a RSSI calculated for the specific remote vehicle. Decisions on respective further actions to be performed by the specific remote vehicle and by the local vehicle are made based on respective plausibility checks applied to both vehicles using the dynamic RSSI model.
WO 2025/093554 discloses a method for determining a position of an object by means of signal deflection, in particular signal reflection, to a computing unit and a computer program for carrying out said method, and to a transmitting/receiving system. A signal emitted by a first transmitting/receiving unit into a spatial region is deflected by the object in the spatial region and is received by a second transmitting/receiving unit. A reference signal emitted by a third transmitting/receiving unit to the second transmitting/receiving unit, a position indication of the first transmitting/receiving unit and a position indication of the third transmitting/receiving unit are received by the second transmitting/receiving unit, and a position of the at least one object is determined by the second transmitting/receiving unit on the basis of the deflected, in particular reflected, emitted signal, the reference signal, the position indication of the first transmitting/receiving unit and the position indication of the third transmitting/receiving unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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) 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 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646