DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The use of the terms eCall, FlexRay, Ethernet, and Bluetooth, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. This is not an objection to the specification, but Applicant is urged to respect the rights of the respective mark holders.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The drawings of April 22, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of April 22, 2024 has been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
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 limitations are: “communication unit” in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 18; “self-position estimation unit” in claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18; “reflecting body detection unit” in claims 8, 9, 10, and 11; “matching unit” in claim 8; and, “reflecting body map generation unit” in claim 11. In each of these listed limitations, “unit” is considered the generic placeholder.
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.
The claimed features “communication unit” in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 18; “self-position estimation unit” in claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18; “reflecting body detection unit” in claims 8, 9, 10, and 11; “matching unit” in claim 8; and, “reflecting body map generation unit” in claim 11 are disclosed as being computer-implemented. For example, please note paragraphs [181], [192], and [193] in the specification.
Computer-implemented functions fall into two general types: The first type are specialized functions. These are functions other than those commonly known in the art. Courts often describe these functions as requiring “special programming” in order for a general purpose computer or computer component to perform the function. An example of a specialized function is a “means for matching incoming orders with inventory on a pro rata basis.” Special programming is typically described as the algorithm by which the computer operates. [Example derived from Chicago Board Options Exchange v. Int. Securities Exchange (Fed. Cir. 2014)]
The second type are non-specialized functions. Those are functions known by those of ordinary skill in the art as being commonly performed by a general purpose computer or computer component. An example of a non-specialized function is a “means for storing data.”
A specialized function must be supported in the specification by the computer and the algorithm that the computer uses to perform the claimed specialized function. The default rule for § 112(f) programmed computer claim limitations is to require disclosure of an algorithm when special programming is needed to perform the claimed function. The reason that this is the default rule is that disclosure of the step by step procedure for specialized functions establishes clear, definite boundaries and notifies the public of the claim scope. “And by claiming a processor programmed to perform a specialized function without disclosing the internal structure of that processor in the form of an algorithm, Katz’s claims exhibit the ‘overbreadth inherent in open-ended functional claims’” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011), citing to Halliburton Energy Services v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1256 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Disclosing the algorithm for a specialized function is the quid pro quo for the ability to claim an element in purely functional terms.
Due to the complexity of each, the claimed features “self-position estimation unit” in claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18; “reflecting body detection unit” in claims 8, 9, 10, and 11; “matching unit” in claim 8; and, “reflecting body map generation unit” in claim 11 are considered specialized functions.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed features “self-position estimation unit” in claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18; “reflecting body detection unit” in claims 8, 9, 10, and 11; “matching unit” in claim 8; and, “reflecting body map generation unit” in claim 11 are considered to be using specialized functions. The disclosure that is necessary for the written description of computer-implemented functions using specialized functions has not been met, at least, in that the disclosure of the necessary programs/algorithms is not in sufficient detail to describe to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art what they are. So, one of ordinary skill-in-the-art could not reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 1-18 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.
Each of the claim limitations “self-position estimation unit” in claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18; “reflecting body detection unit” in claims 8, 9, 10, and 11; “matching unit” in claim 8; and, “reflecting body map generation unit” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Please see section 11 above for the reasons. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In each of claims 1, 6-8, 12-15, and 18, it is unclear if the “vehicle” is positively recited as a part of the “information processing apparatus” (claim 1 at line 1) or as a part of the “information processing system (claim 18 at line 1).
Similarly, in independent claim 17, it is unclear if the use of the “vehicle” in the claimed method is positively recited.
In each of claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, 17, and 18, the uses of the term, “reflecting body map” are unclear in context, including being unclear as to the antecedent in the disclosure. Please see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
In claim 8, the use of the term, “reflecting body detection unit” is unclear in context, including being unclear as to the antecedent in the disclosure. Please see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
In claim 11, the use of the term, “reflecting body map generation unit” is unclear in context, including being unclear as to the antecedent in the disclosure. Please see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Each of dependent claims 2-16 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Objection to the Specification
The specification is hereby objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) due to failing to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Prior Art Rejections
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 1, 7-9, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilhousen (‘612).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of positioning systems.
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, the claimed, “communication unit that performs communication with a base station of wireless communication that transmits information used for self-position estimation of a vehicle” (lines 2-4) is met in Gilhousen (‘612) by the disclosed cellular telephone equipment withing the disclosed mobile units or “vehicle” (e.g., items 16 and 18 in Figure 13; column 8, lines 25-30).
The claim 1 limitations, “self-position estimation unit that performs self-position estimation of the vehicle on a basis of a reflecting body map indicating a distribution of reflecting bodies in a case where the communication with the base station is not possible” (lines 5-8) are substantially-met in Gilhousen (‘612) by the disclosed map-matching arrangement (e.g., column 8, lines 19-49), except for the limitation, “where the communication with the base station is not possible” (lines 7-8).
In that the map-matching arrangement in Gilhousen (‘612) is supplementary to the cellular telephone equipment, and, in that Gilhousen (‘621) acknowledges poor cellular telephone signal at some locations (column 8, lines 25-35), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that certain areas of poor cellular telephone signal would go to the extreme in which there was no detectable signal, and, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in such a situation to use the only remaining positioning system remaining (i.e., the map-matching arrangement) for the advantage of not being totally without positioning capability, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In that each and every claimed feature of independent claim 1 is met by Gilhousen (‘612) as modified above, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gilhousen (‘612).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 7, these are met by the map-matching arrangement in Gilhousen (‘612) as applied to independent claim 1 above.
Next, looking to the further limitations of dependent claim 8, these are substantially-met by Gilhousen (‘612) as applied above to claims 1 and 7, although, the claimed, “reflecting body detection unit” (line 3) is not made clear in Gilhousen (‘612). Gilhousen (‘612) discloses map matching (e.g., column 8, lines 19-50) along with performing a “survey” of an area in order to have the map from sensing objects in the area (e.g., column 8, lines 30-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “reflecting body detection unit” in order to perform the sensing for the disclosed “survey,” and, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide such a “reflecting body detecting unit” to provide the sensed data for the map matching, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 9, Gilhousen (‘612) as applied to claims 8, 7, and 1 above determines position/location in performing the “survey” for the map (e.g., column 8, lines 30-50), but, there is no mention of “reflection intensity.” In that Gilhousen (‘612) discloses finding data in map-matching that “most closely match” measurements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try other measurements from the wide variety of possible measurements, such as “reflection intensity,” to aid in resolving any ambiguity in the map-matching, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 11 are met by Gilhousen (‘612) as applied above to claims 8, 7, and 1, except for the limitation, “in an out-of-communication range of the wireless communication” (lines 5-6). In that Gilhousen (‘612) discloses the “survey” generally, without reference to the position of where the “survey” is made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the “survey” could be performed in any suitable location, including that claimed, with a reasonable likelihood of success. Alternatively, in that Gilhousen (‘612) discloses the “survey” generally, without reference to the position of where the “survey” is made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the ”survey” in “an out-of-communication range of the wireless communication” (lines 5-6) in order to eliminate/minimize potential unwanted interference in the measurement sensing of the map-matching, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 16, although Gilhousen (‘612) does not disclose the claimed use of a “fifth generation mobile communication system,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try other, more-modern telephone systems, from among the many possible choices, in Gilhousen (‘612) as applied above to claim 1, in an effort to optimize the functioning of the apparatus/system, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 17 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 17 is the method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1.
Finally, as for independent claim 18, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1. In addition, the “base station of wireless communication that transmits information used for self-position estimation of a vehicle” (lines 2-3) is met by any base station disclosed in Gilhousen (‘612) as applied above to independent claim 1, as it transmits signals used in determining location of the vehicle. The ” information processing apparatus that performs self-position estimation of the vehicle” (lines 4-5) is met in Gilhousen (‘612) as applied above to independent claim 1, by any disclosed processor or processing device to perform positioning (i.e., any processor or processing device to perform the processing functions of any one more of the flowcharts of Figures 1-7 or 10-12), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of Thomson et al (‘122), Carlson et al (‘026), Tervo et al (‘344), Gilhousen (‘635), and, Gilhousen (‘413) is of general interest for the disclosed use of base stations and map matching.
Matsuno (‘296) is of general interest for the passage at column 11, lines 30-47.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648