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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In order to Explain Examiner position it is important to clarify the interpretation. According to Examiner “an artificial side barrier” is any obstacle which is located parallel to vehicle and hence Reference by Sasaki explicitly teaches “identifying the source of the radar echoes as an artificial side barrier based on the determinations” as according to Sasaki “stationary object such as a guardrail and also a parallel running vehicle is detected” and hence limitation “the radar echoes which were reflected perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and/or perpendicular to the direction of travel of the motor vehicle” is satisfied. In addition, Primary reference also teaches “the radar echoes which were reflected perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and/or perpendicular to the direction of travel of the motor vehicle” and hence combination is proper and teaches the claimed invention.
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: “a radar device configured to detect…” in claim 20.
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.
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.
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) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 11378653 B2 in view of D2 JP 2015055541 A.
Regarding claim 11 D1 teaches
11. (New) A method for localizing a motor vehicle, comprising:
a data interface configured to acquire radar data,(fig. 4)
a computer-readable data memory, and(col 6 lines 48-67)
a processor coupled to the memory(col 6 lines 48-67), wherein the localization device is configured to
providing a map in which artificial side barriers that run laterally along a road are entered;(claim 1 geometrical objects associated with a predefined map)
emitting radar signals(abstract) in a transverse direction of the vehicle during a journey using a radar device of the motor vehicle;(col 11 line 55- col 12 line 8)
receiving resulting radar echoes; (col 11 line 55- col 12 line 8)
determining the radar echoes which were reflected perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the vehicle(fig. 1) and/or perpendicular to the direction of travel of the motor vehicle(fig. 1)
determining a distance of the motor vehicle from the respective source based on the radar echoes;(col 3 lines 7-20)
identifying the source of the radar echoes as an artificial side barrier based on determination; and(fig. 1)
based on the identified source, determining a current position of the motor vehicle in the map.(claim 1)
But does not teach
and which indicate a vanishing relative velocity between the motor vehicle and a respective source from which the radar echo originates;
D2 teaches
Using radar echo Identifying guardrails by vanishing relative velocity between the motor vehicle and a respective source from which the radar echo originates;[0004][0009]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D2 in order to identify the guardrails as required by D1.
12. (New) The method according to claim 11, wherein the source is identified as an artificial side barrier only if a corresponding radar echo is recorded from the same point in a fixed vehicle coordinate system over multiple measurement cycles of the radar device. D1(fig. 3 multiple points are used to identify the structure)/D2([0019-24])
13. (New) The method according to claim 11, further comprising:
determining an expected radar echo from the artificial side barrier based on the map and a respective current pose of the motor vehicle; and
monitoring the position of the motor vehicle on the map based on the expected radar echo and the determined radar echoes. D1 (fig. 1-3, col 12 line 9-col 13 line 6)
14. (New) The method according to claim 11, further comprising:
generating a corresponding particle in a predetermined model for some or all of the received radar echoes, and D1(col 12 lines 39-52)
then using a predetermined particle filter to identify the radar echoes originating from the artificial side barrier.D1 (col 13 line 57-col 14 line 33)
Regarding claim 15 D1 teaches
15. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein from measurement cycle to measurement cycle of the radar device, the particle filter retains only those particles that repeatedly occur at the same point in a coordinate system; D1 (col 5 line 53-col 6 line 47)
But does not teach while D2 teaches that is fixed relative to the vehicle and indicate a vanishing velocity of the respective source relative to the motor vehicle. [0004-0009]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D2 in order identify guardrails or curbsides.
16. (New) The method according to claim 11, further comprising:
modeling a change in a radar echo originating from an artificial side barrier during a lateral relative movement between the motor vehicle and the side barrier, and
assigning radar echoes over multiple measurement cycles of the radar device by considering the change in the radar echo.D1 (col 13 line 65- col 14 line 32)
17. (New) The method according to claim 16, wherein
for determining the lateral relative movement, odometry data of the motor vehicle is automatically evaluated.D1 (col 9 lines 14-37)
18. (New) The method according to claim 16, wherein for determining the lateral relative motion, a course of the road is determined and a course of the side barrier following this course of the road is modelled. D1 (col 9 lines 14-37)
20. (New) A motor vehicle, comprising:
a radar device configured to detect environment objects to the side of the motor vehicle in the transverse direction of the vehicle(D1: fig. 3), and
the localization device of claim 19 coupled to the radar device.(D1: fig. 4)
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELENA SERAYDARYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, 7:30-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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 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.
/HELENA H SERAYDARYAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648C
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights