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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
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 positioning module" in claims 10-16.
“a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication module” in claims 10-16.
“ a detection module” in claims 10-16.
“a determining and calculating module” in claims 10-16.
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.
Contingent Limitations:
The Examiner would like to point out that method claims 1-9 contain contingent limitations. For example, in claim 1, the limitation of “when the first vehicle detects a second vehicle, and the second vehicle is not capable of sending position information of the second vehicle to the outside, requesting, by the first vehicle, a first auxiliary unit and a second auxiliary unit that are capable of detecting the second vehicle to assist in auxiliary and cooperative positioning within a communication range of the first vehicle”. The feature of “requesting, by the first vehicle, a first auxiliary unit and a second auxiliary unit that are capable of detecting the second vehicle to assist in auxiliary and cooperative positioning within a communication range of the first vehicle” is contingent on the method step of “when the first vehicle detects a second vehicle, and the second vehicle is not capable of sending position information of the second vehicle to the outside”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this method claim, the step of “requesting, by the first vehicle, a first auxiliary unit and a second auxiliary unit that are capable of detecting the second vehicle to assist in auxiliary and cooperative positioning within a communication range of the first vehicle” does not need to occur to fulfill the method. are contingent on this feature of claim 1 and therefore, those claim do not carry patentable weight. (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations). Method 2-9 depend on the contingent limitations of claim 1 and as such these dependent claims do not carry patentable weight and have not been examined with prior art. The Examiner would like to point out that all instances of the limitations starting with “when…” in method claims 1-3,5 and 7-8 create contingent limitations.
The contingent limitations of systems claims 10-16 (i.e. note the method claims that systems claims 10-16 depend upon) carry patentable weight due to the broadest reasonable interoperation of a contingent limitation within a system claim (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations).
Claim Objections
Claims 10-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10-16 recites, “of second vehicle” which would recite, “of the second vehicle”.
Claim 10-16 are system claims which depend upon the features of method claims. Claim 10-16 should be re-written to recite the reference to the method claims onto which they depend upon at the beginning of the claim rather than at the end to maintain clear antecedent basis for “the first vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "when the second vehicle is not located on the straight line or extended line on which the first vehicle and the first auxiliary unit or second auxiliary unit are located, determining whether there are triangular relationships among the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the first auxiliary unit and among the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the second auxiliary unit separately, and when there are the triangular relationships, calculating coordinates of the second vehicle according to a sine theorem or cosine theorem for a triangle”. This limitation is unclear as when a vehicle and three units are not located on a straight line, then they inherently have a triangular relationship[ amongst them. It is unclear how what is meant by the “determining whether there are triangular relationships” feature.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the determining coordinates (Xd, Yd) of the second vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “determining coordinates (Xd, Yd)” has been introduced.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the triangle BAC". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US 20220060852 A1), hereinafter Ha.
Regarding claim 1, Ha discloses
A vehicle auxiliary positioning method (see Abstract, “A device and method for positioning personal mobility vehicle are disclosed.”, further see paragraph 0035, “The control unit 140 estimates a candidate position of the PM vehicle based on the distances between the PM vehicle and the plurality of auxiliary RSUs. For example, the control unit 140 may estimate the candidate position of the PM vehicle by applying a positioning method such as triangulation, trilateration and a fingerprint technique to the distances between the PM vehicle and the plurality of auxiliary RSUs.”), comprising:
periodically sending, by a first vehicle, position information of the first vehicle to outside (see paragraph 0034, “Thereafter, the control unit 140 obtains distances between a PM vehicle and a plurality of auxiliary RSUs based on the messages. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the control unit 140 may calculate the distances from the PM vehicle to the plurality of auxiliary RSUs based on at least one of a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) and a Time of Flight (ToF) of the messages.”, where RSSI and ToF messages require “position information” to be sent from the vehicle to outside. Furthermore, V2X communication requires the periodic sending of positioning information from a vehicle to outside, see paragraph 0017, “The present disclosure in some embodiments seek to provide a device and method for positioning a PM vehicle for providing an accurate position of the PM vehicle using a plurality of road side units and V2X communication even in a global navigation Satellite System (GNSS) dead-zone or an area where diffused reflection of a satellite signal is severe.”);
when the first vehicle detects a second vehicle, and the second vehicle is not capable of sending position information of the second vehicle to the outside, requesting, by the first vehicle A, a first auxiliary unit and a second auxiliary unit that are capable of detecting the second vehicle to assist in auxiliary and cooperative positioning within a communication range of the first vehicle, wherein the first auxiliary unit and the second auxiliary unit are vehicles or roadside units (NOTE: this limitation does not carry patentable weight, see claim interpretation section above),
wherein the auxiliary and cooperative positioning comprises:
determining whether the second vehicle is located on a straight line on which the first vehicle and the first auxiliary unit or second auxiliary unit are located or an extension of the straight line (NOTE: this limitation does not carry patentable weight, see claim interpretation section above);
when the second vehicle is located on the straight line or extended line on which the first vehicle and the first auxiliary unit or second auxiliary unit are located, determining coordinates of the second vehicle based on coordinates of the first vehicle, a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle and a direction of a connection line between the first vehicle and the first auxiliary unit or the second auxiliary unit (NOTE: this limitation does not carry patentable weight, see claim interpretation section above);
when the second vehicle is not located on the straight line or extended line on which the first vehicle and the first auxiliary unit or second auxiliary unit are located, determining whether there are triangular relationships among the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the first auxiliary unit and among the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the second auxiliary unit- separately (NOTE: this limitation does not carry patentable weight, see claim interpretation section above), and
when there are the triangular relationships, calculating coordinates of the second vehicle according to a sine theorem or cosine theorem for a triangle (NOTE: this limitation does not carry patentable weight, see claim interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 2-9, the claims are contingent method claims and not carry patentable weight (see claim interpretation section above). Therefore, claims 2-19 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Ha et al. (US 20220060852 A1).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 would be potentially allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claims 10-16, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 10-16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang, Fa’an, et al. "Geometry-based cooperative localization for connected vehicle subject to temporary loss of GNSS signals." IEEE Sensors Journal 21.20 (2021): 23527-23536. (Year: 2021) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses the determination of triangular relationships between vehicles and road side units to determine positioning information using sine and cosine theorems (see Fig. 4, further see section B. Curvy Road Segment).
Yong (KR 20180050449 A) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses the determination of straight line relationships between vehicles and road side units to determine positioning information (see paragraph 0082, “The vehicle's positioning device (100) can determine the straight-line distance between each RSU and the vehicle by measuring the position information of each RSU node and the strength of the signal received from each RSU node.”, further see paragraph 0085, “The vehicle positioning device (100) can determine the straight-line distance between the vehicle and the first RSU node based on the time when communication with the first RSU node is cut off, that is, the time when the first RSU node begins not to be detected, and the coordinate information of the first RSU node.”; Note: citations corresponding to provided English translation copy).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (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 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights