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 .
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 05/07/2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
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 distance calculation unit, a communication unit, and a sensor state determination unit in claims 1, 18, and 19: and a calibration execution unit in claim 12.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021062766 (Kudo et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 18, and 19
Kudo discloses: A sensor verification device (see at least Fig 1; #10; Abstract; and pg.2) wherein the external device is either an external vehicle or an infrastructure (see at least Fig 1, 2, 5; #20 and #50; and pg.4 and pg. 7), and the own vehicle includes/comprising:
a distance calculation unit (#101) that calculates a device- to-device distance between an own device (#10) and an external device (#20) as own device calculated distance data D1 on a basis of a detection value of a sensor (see at least Fig 1; #101, #301, and D101; and pg. 2-3; “The train 10 is a train equipped with a sensor having a function of estimating the position of an object in front of the train. Further, the train 10 may be further equipped with a sensor having a function of estimating the position of an object behind the train. The first sensor 101 is an obstacle detection sensor mounted on the train 10, and when the first sensor 101 is close to the ground equipment 20 equipped with the second sensor 201, the first of the ground equipment 20 and the train 10 The distance 301 is calculated and output to the failure determination unit 102. Examples of the first sensor 101 include a laser sensor such as LiDAR, a millimeter wave radar, a camera, an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and the like, but the first sensor 101 is not limited to these, and the first sensor 101 is not limited thereto. It suffices if the distance 301 can be calculated.”);
a communication unit that (#105) receives the device-to-device distance calculated by the external device from the external device as external device calculated distance data D2 (see at least Fig 1; #105 and D201; and pg. 3; “The first communication device 105 receives the second distance information D201 transmitted from the second communication device 203 installed on the train 10 and installed on the ground equipment 20, and sends the second distance information D201 to the failure determination unit 102. The second distance information D201 is output. The first communication device 105 may be capable of wireless communication with the second communication device 203 in some band.”); and
a sensor state determination unit (#102) that compares the own device calculated distance data D1 (#D101) with the external device calculated distance data D2 (#D201) and determines whether or not the sensor is in a state capable of measuring a correct distance value on a basis of a comparison result (see at least Fig 1; #102, #D101, and #D201; and pg.3; “The failure determination unit 102 holds a preset threshold value, and inputs the second distance information D201, the first distance information D101, and the correction term information D102. If the value obtained by correcting the difference between the second distance information D201 and the first distance information D101 using the correction term information D102 is larger than the threshold value, the first sensor 101 or the second sensor 101 or the second sensor 101 or the second. It is determined that the sensor 201 of the above is out of order.”).
With respect to claim 2
Kudo discloses:
wherein the sensor state determination unit (#102) is configured to calculate a difference between the own device calculated distance data D1 and the external device calculated distance data D2 calculated at a same timing (see at least Fig 1 and 2; #102, ##D101, and #D201; and pg.3-5; “The train 10 traveling at speed V ((403) approaches the ground equipment 20, and at time t (401),…”).
With respect to claim 4
Kudo discloses: wherein the sensor state determination unit is configured to:
determine whether or not a difference between the own device calculated distance data D1 and the external device calculated distance data D2 is less than a defined threshold (see at least Fig 4; S207-209; and pg. 6; “The sensor soundness is confirmed…”); and
determine that the sensor is in a state capable of measuring a correct distance value in a case where the difference is less than the defined threshold (see at least Fig 4; S207-209; and pg. 6; “The sensor soundness is confirmed…”).
With respect to claim 5
Kudo discloses: wherein the sensor state determination unit is configured to:
determine whether or not a difference between the own device calculated distance data D1 and the external device calculated distance data D2 is less than a defined threshold (see at least Fig 4; S207-209; and pg. 6; “The sensor soundness is confirmed…”); and
determine that there is a possibility that the sensor is not in a state capable of measuring a correct distance value in a case where the difference is not less than the defined threshold (see at least Fig 4; S207-212; and pg.6 “if the absolute value is larger than the threshold value…”).
With respect to claim 6
Kudo discloses: wherein the sensor state determination unit is configured to:
determine whether or not a difference between the own device calculated distance data D1 and the external device calculated distance data D2 is less than a defined threshold (see at least Fig 4; S207-209; and pg. 6; “The sensor soundness is confirmed…”); and
in a case where calculated distance data comparison process with a new external device is executed in a case where the difference is not less than the defined threshold, and in a case where the number of times the difference between calculated distances of the own device and the external device becomes equal to or greater than the threshold continues a predefined number of times, determine that the sensor is not in a state capable of measuring a correct distance value (see at least Fig 8; 80 and 701-801; and pg. 10-11; “a method of determining whether the first sensor or the second sensor has an abnormality…the third ground equipment 80…”).
With respect to claim 7
Kudo discloses:
wherein the sensor verification device is a device mounted on a vehicle (see at least Fig 1, 2, and 5; #10; and pg. 4 and pg. 7), and
the external device is either an external vehicle or an infrastructure as a road facility (see at least Fig 1, 2, 5; #20 and #50; and pg.4 and pg. 7).
With respect to claim 8
Kudo discloses:
wherein the distance calculation unit is configured to calculate a distance between an own vehicle and an external vehicle or an infrastructure as own device calculated distance data D1 on a basis of a detection value of the sensor (see at least Fig 1; #101, #301, and D101; and pg. 2-3; “The train 10 is a train equipped with a sensor having a function of estimating the position of an object in front of the train. Further, the train 10 may be further equipped with a sensor having a function of estimating the position of an object behind the train. The first sensor 101 is an obstacle detection sensor mounted on the train 10, and when the first sensor 101 is close to the ground equipment 20 equipped with the second sensor 201, the first of the ground equipment 20 and the train 10 The distance 301 is calculated and output to the failure determination unit 102. Examples of the first sensor 101 include a laser sensor such as LiDAR, a millimeter wave radar, a camera, an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and the like, but the first sensor 101 is not limited to these, and the first sensor 101 is not limited thereto. It suffices if the distance 301 can be calculated.”), and
the communication unit is configured to receive external device calculated distance data D2 calculated by the external vehicle or the infrastructure from the external device (see at least Fig 1; #105 and D201; and pg. 3; “The first communication device 105 receives the second distance information D201 transmitted from the second communication device 203 installed on the train 10 and installed on the ground equipment 20, and sends the second distance information D201 to the failure determination unit 102. The second distance information D201 is output. The first communication device 105 may be capable of wireless communication with the second communication device 203 in some band.”).
With respect to claim 11
Kudo discloses:
wherein the sensor state determination unit is configured to notify the external device of a determination result as to whether or not a difference between the own device calculated distance data D1 and the external device calculated distance data D2 is less than a defined threshold via the communication unit (see at least Fig 2; S209; and pg. 6).
With respect to claim 16
Kudo discloses:
wherein the sensor is any one of a stereo camera, a monocular camera, and a distance measuring sensor (see at least Fig 1; #101; and pg. 2-3).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021062766 (Kudo et al.) in view of JP 2020042013 (Chen et al.).
With respect to claim 3
Kudo teaches:
wherein the sensor state determination unit (#102) is configured to acquire calculated distance data at a same timing with the own device calculated distance data D1 and the external device calculated distance data D2, and calculate a difference (see at least Fig 1 and 2; #102, ##D101, and #D201; and pg.3-5; “The train 10 traveling at speed V ((403) approaches the ground equipment 20, and at time t (401),…”).
Kudo does not discuss the use of time stamps and therefore does not specifically teach:
wherein the sensor state determination unit is configured to acquire calculated distance data at a same timing on a basis of time stamps.
However using timestamps to align data would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically Chen teaches:
wherein the sensor state determination unit is configured to acquire calculated distance data at a same timing on a basis of time stamps (see at least Fig 4; #20; and pg. 4-7; “the distance measurement data further includes a time stamp of the laser radar…”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor error detection system disclosed in Kudo with system for using time stamps to align sensor data taught in Chen with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to align sensor data (see Chen pg. 4-7; “The time stamp is used to indicate when the laser radar can measure a distance. Therefore, in this embodiment, the distance measurement device based on the laser radar system selects the distance acquired at the same measurement time by using the time stamp in the distance measurement data, and converts the three-dimensional coordinate model at that time”). Thus making the system more accurate.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021062766 (Kudo et al.) in view of JP 2021099707 (Takahashi et al.).
With respect to claim 12
Kudo does not specifically teach:
wherein the sensor verification device includes a calibration execution unit that executes a calibration process of the sensor, and the calibration execution unit is configured to execute the calibration process of the sensor in a case where the sensor state determination unit determines that the sensor is not in a state capable of measuring a correct distance value.
However calibrating a sensor would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically Takahashi teaches:
wherein the sensor verification device includes a calibration execution unit that executes a calibration process of the sensor, and the calibration execution unit is configured to execute the calibration process of the sensor in a case where the sensor state determination unit determines that the sensor is not in a state capable of measuring a correct distance value (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor error detection system disclosed in Kudo with system for calibrating a camera taught in Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to correct for an error in the sensor without waiting for the periodic inspections (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12). Thus increasing the accuracy of the system.
With respect to claim 13
Kudo does not specifically teach:
wherein the calibration execution unit is configured to execute processing of correcting at least one of an internal parameter or an external parameter of the sensor to bring the sensor into a state capable of measuring a correct distance value.
However calibrating a sensor would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically Takahashi teaches:
wherein the calibration execution unit is configured to execute processing of correcting at least one of an internal parameter or an external parameter of the sensor to bring the sensor into a state capable of measuring a correct distance value (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor error detection system disclosed in Kudo with system for calibrating a camera taught in Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to correct for an error in the sensor without waiting for the periodic inspections (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12). Thus increasing the accuracy of the system.
With respect to claim 14
Kudo does not specifically teach:
wherein the sensor is a stereo camera, and the calibration execution unit is configured to execute the calibration process using a captured image of a stereo camera and correct distance data stored in a memory.
However calibrating a sensor would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically Takahashi teaches:
wherein the sensor is a stereo camera, and the calibration execution unit is configured to execute the calibration process using a captured image of a stereo camera and correct distance data stored in a memory. (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor error detection system disclosed in Kudo with system for calibrating a camera taught in Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to correct for an error in the sensor without waiting for the periodic inspections (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12). Thus increasing the accuracy of the system.
With respect to claim 15
Kudo does not specifically teach:
wherein the sensor is a stereo camera, and the calibration execution unit is configured to execute a correction process of a lookup table that is correspondence data between a parallax and a distance stored in a memory to bring the sensor into a state capable of measuring a correct distance value.
However calibrating a sensor would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically Takahashi teaches:
wherein the sensor is a stereo camera, and the calibration execution unit is configured to execute a correction process of a lookup table that is correspondence data between a parallax and a distance stored in a memory to bring the sensor into a state capable of measuring a correct distance value (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor error detection system disclosed in Kudo with system for calibrating a camera taught in Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to correct for an error in the sensor without waiting for the periodic inspections (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12). Thus increasing the accuracy of the system.
With respect to claim 17
Kudo does not specifically teach:
wherein the distance calculation unit is configured to calculate a distance between a marker attached to the external device and the own device.
However Takahashi teaches:
wherein the distance calculation unit is configured to calculate a distance between a marker attached to the external device and the own device (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #50; and pg.10-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor error detection system disclosed in Kudo with system for calibrating a camera based on a known distance to a marker taught in Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to correct for an error in the sensor without waiting for the periodic inspections (see at least Fig 9-10; #10 and #21; and pg.10-12). Thus increasing the accuracy of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0241194 (Fukasawa et al.): Discussing determining distance to the other vehicle from sensor data, receiving an inter vehicle distance from another vehicle, and determining if there is a sensor anomaly and if there is what sensor is having the issue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights