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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) of record.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korean on 12/14/2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Rejoinder of Restricted Claims
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), Claims 3-5 and 8-9, directed to dependent claims, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim 10 is directed to an allowable process. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), Claims 13-15 and 18-19, directed to dependent claims, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 4/14/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Status of Application
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 7 and 17 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 13-15, and 18-19 have been rejoined.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 will be examined below.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 1/29/2026 and the Interview conducted with Hanqin Lin on 2/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” filed on 1/29/2026: Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Applicants remarks will be addressed in the order they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the NON-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 1-2, 6, 10-12, 16, and 20 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.
Claim 1 states “and store, in the memory, the changed filter coefficient applied to the adaptive filter, the specified input signal, the output signal, or a combination of the filter coefficient, the specified input signal, and the output signal” and it is unclear if this is a typo or applicant means “the filter coefficient” and not the “changed coefficient”. Further, in applicants amendments, the “at least one of” has been cancelled, yet there is still a list with “or a combination” thus this appears to still be any combination of the list stated, as previously interpreted. As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as “the changed coefficient” and further as any combination, even only one item from the list.
Claim 1 further states “correct the filter coefficient of the adaptive filter based on at least one of a calibration value of the at least one sensor, a reliability of sensor data obtained through the at least one sensor, or a combination of the calibration value and the reliability of the sensor data” and this step introduces some confusion as what is actually being carried out, thus the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is indefinite. Earlier in the claim, there is a filter coefficient for the adaptive filter, and then a change is filter coefficient is identified and saved to memory, thus creating a changed filter coefficient. Is this a separate changing of the filter coefficient, thus the change being measured when this change exceeds a threshold or is this a separate step or process of changing the filter coefficient? For example, there is a changed filter coefficient and a corrected coefficient, and is later based on the former, or is this a separate step, of changing the filter coefficient? Is the step of “identifying” based perhaps the order and some connecting language might be needed for clarity the actual steps of creating the change and identifying the change. As currently presented Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claim is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this, based on the current understanding in the specification, as a further detailed step of how the change in the filter coefficient is created. Thus this step should be before the “identify step” and the correcting is actually just changing the filter coefficient based on “at least one sensor, a reliability of sensor data obtained through the at least one sensor, or a combination of the calibration value and the reliability of the sensor data”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 1 further states “update the filter coefficient based on an error output, which is generated by calculating an output value of the adaptive filter generated according to a required input serving as a reference input for updating the filter coefficient and the required input” and this step introduces some confusion as what is actually being carried out, thus the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is indefinite. Earlier in the claim, there is a filter coefficient for the adaptive filter, and then a change is filter coefficient is identified and saved to memory, thus creating a changed filter coefficient. Is this a separate “updating of the filter coefficient” or “updating the changed filter coefficient”? As above, it becomes increasingly unclear what is actually being claimed, thus when the Office looks into the specification, it appears that this “updating” is another part of the “identifying a change”. As currently presented Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claim is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this, based on the current understanding in the specification, as a further detailed step of how the change in the filter coefficient is created. Thus this step should be before the “identify step” and the “updating” is actually just changing the filter coefficient based on “abased on an error output, which is generated by calculating an output value of the adaptive filter generated according to a required input serving as a reference input for updating the filter coefficient and the required input”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 5 states “determine whether a strength of the output signal output by performing the autonomous driving control logic exceeds the output signal strength threshold value stored in the memory” and this limitation is already has two issues. First, there is an antecedent issue with “a strength of the output signal” as this was already introduced in Claim 1. The Office will interpret this as a second strength of an output signal” since the limit has been released in the before limitation. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 5.
Claim 8 states “apply the filter coefficient, which is stored in the memory, to the at least one adaptive filter when it is identified that a host vehicle stops driving and turns off a start” and the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear. This misunderstanding is based on the issues with Claim 1, in where there is a filter coefficient, a changed filter coefficient, a corrected filter coefficient, and an updated filter coefficient. If this is merely the initial coefficient, then nothing has been done and this limitation has no metes and bounds. However, it this is a mere typo, which is how the Office is interpreting it, the changed coefficient is stored in memory and then applied when a host vehicle turns off. The Office Will interpret this limitation accordingly. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 8.
Claim 9 states “transmit, to an external device, at least one of the filter coefficient, the specified input signal, the output signal, or a combination of the filter coefficient, the specified input signal, and the output signal when the strength of the output signal exceeds the output signal strength threshold value;” and the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear. This misunderstanding is based on the issues with Claim 1, in where there is a filter coefficient, a changed filter coefficient, a corrected filter coefficient, and an updated filter coefficient. If this is merely the initial coefficient, then merely saving the initial coefficient would suffice.. However, it this is a mere typo, which is how the Office is interpreting it, the changed coefficient is stored in memory and then transferred. The Office Will interpret this limitation accordingly. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 9.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 12014, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c