DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe 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
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/728,426 filed on 07/11/2024. Claims 11-20 have been examined.
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 11-20 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 11 recites: "A system for testing a driving assistance system, comprising:
a sensor arrangement configured to:
detect an actuation of an operating element of a vehicle by a user and generate corresponding first detection data, and
detect an acoustic signal which indicates the actuation of the operating element by the user or which is output on the basis of the actuation of the operating element and generate corresponding second detection data; and
at least one evaluation module configured to:
determine, on the basis of the first detection data, a first point in time corresponding to the actuation of the operating element by the user, and
determine, on the basis of the second detection data, a second point in time corresponding to an output of the acoustic signal."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“at least one evaluation module configured to: determine … determine … signal.”
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. 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.
Intended Use: Alternatively, the language of the claim is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“at least one evaluation module configured to: determine … determine … signal.”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A system for testing a driving assistance system, comprising:
a sensor arrangement configured to:
detect an actuation of an operating element of a vehicle by a user and generate corresponding first detection data, and
detect an acoustic signal which indicates the actuation of the operating element by the user or which is output on the basis of the actuation of the operating element and generate corresponding second detection data; and
at least one evaluation module [intended to:
determine, on the basis of the first detection data, a first point in time corresponding to the actuation of the operating element by the user, and
determine, on the basis of the second detection data, a second point in time corresponding to an output of the acoustic signal]."
Claims 12-18 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 12 recites: "The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one evaluation module is configured to determine a difference between the second point in time and the first point in time."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one evaluation module is [intended to determine a difference between the second point in time and the first point in time]."
Claim 13 recites: "The system of claim 11, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises:
at least one first sensor module configured to:
detect the actuation of the operating element by the user, and generate the first detection data;
at least one second sensor module configured to:
detect the acoustic signal indicating the actuation of the operating element by the user, and generate the second detection data."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 11, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises:
at least one first sensor module [intended to:
detect the actuation of the operating element by the user, and generate the first detection data];
at least one second sensor module [intended to:
detect the acoustic signal indicating the actuation of the operating element by the user, and generate the second detection data]."
Claims 14-15 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 17 recites: "The system of claim 16, further comprising a mechanical sound generator attachable to the operating element of the vehicle, wherein the sound generator is configured to generate sound when the operating element is actuated by the user, which sound is detectable by the sensor module, in order to generate the first detection data."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the sensor module”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 16, further comprising a mechanical sound generator attachable to the operating element of the vehicle, wherein the sound generator is configured to generate sound when the operating element is actuated by the user, which sound is detectable by a sensor module, [intended to generate the first detection data]."
Claim 18 recites: "The system of claim 11, wherein the operating element of the vehicle is a gear selector switch or a switching element for activating the driving assistance system."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 11, wherein the operating element of the vehicle is a gear selector switch or a switching element [intended for activating the driving assistance system]."
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 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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stadler (DE 10 2017 220466 B3. For purposes of this examination, Examiner will refer to the English language translation of this reference provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 11, Stadler discloses a system for testing a driving assistance system (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, and related text), comprising:
a sensor arrangement (e.g. at least diagnostic device 12, microphones M1-MN, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, Fig. 1, and related text) configured to:
detect an actuation of an operating element of a vehicle by a user and generate corresponding first detection data (see e.g. at least ¶ 22, manual actuation of an acoustic test by a user), and
detect an acoustic signal which indicates the actuation of the operating element by the user or which is output on the basis of the actuation of the operating element and generate corresponding second detection data (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 24, 29, generating acoustic output signals sequentially through the respective loudspeakers L1-LN, and detecting the signals via the microphones M1-MN, and determining whether the respective acoustic signals have been received by the respective microphones, the travel time of the respective signals from the respective loudspeakers to the respective microphones, signal levels detected by the respective microphones, and whether the respective microphones are located at predetermined target positions); and
at least one evaluation module [intended to:
determine, on the basis of the first detection data, a first point in time corresponding to the actuation of the operating element by the user (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 29, Fig. 1, and related text, recording and evaluating the propagation time of the various output signals from the relevant loudspeakers L1-LN to the microphones M1-MN), and
determine, on the basis of the second detection data, a second point in time corresponding to an output of the acoustic signal] (id.).
Regarding claim 12, Stadler discloses that the at least one evaluation module is [intended to determine a difference between the second point in time and the first point in time] (see e.g. at least ¶ 29, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Stadler discloses that the sensor arrangement comprises:
at least one first sensor module (e.g. at least diagnostic device 12, microphones M1-MN, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, Fig. 1, and related text) [intended to:
detect the actuation of the operating element by the user, and generate the first detection data] (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-24);
at least one second sensor module (e.g. at least diagnostic device 12, microphones M1-MN, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, Fig. 1, and related text) [intended to:
detect the acoustic signal indicating the actuation of the operating element by the user, and generate the second detection data] (see e.g. at least ¶ 24, 29, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 14, Stadler discloses that:
the at least one first sensor module and the at least one second sensor module are of a different function type; and/or
the at least one first sensor module comprises one or more electronic touch sensors; and/or
the at least one second sensor module comprises one or more microphones (see e.g. at least ¶ 28, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 15, Stadler discloses that the at least one first sensor module is detachably attachable to the operating element of the vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 28, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 16, Stadler discloses that the sensor arrangement comprises:
a microphone configured to:
detect both the actuation of the operating element by the user and the acoustic signal, and generate the first detection data and the second detection data (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-24, 28-29, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 17, Stadler discloses that the sound generator is configured to generate sound when the operating element is actuated by the user, which sound is detectable by a sensor module, [intended to generate the first detection data] (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-24, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 18, Stadler discloses that the operating element of the vehicle is a gear selector switch or a switching element [intended for activating the driving assistance system] (see e.g. at least ¶ 21-22, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 19, Stadler discloses a method for testing a driving assistance system (see e.g. at least Abstract), comprising:
detecting an actuation of an operating element of a vehicle by a user, wherein the detecting is performed by a sensor arrangement which is able to be attached in the vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-24, 28, Fig. 1, and related text, manual actuation of an acoustic test by a user wherein acoustic signals are generated by loudspeakers L1-LN and detected by microphones M1-MN and analyzed by diagnostic device 12);
generating first detection data corresponding to detecting the actuation (id.);
detecting an acoustic signal indicating the actuation of the operating element by the use, wherein the detecting is performed by the sensor arrangement (id.);
generating second detection data corresponding to detecting the acoustic signal (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 24, 29, generating acoustic output signals sequentially through the respective loudspeakers L1-LN, and detecting the signals via the microphones M1-MN, and determining whether the respective acoustic signals have been received by the respective microphones, the travel time of the respective signals from the respective loudspeakers to the respective microphones, signal levels detected by the respective microphones, and whether the respective microphones are located at predetermined target positions);
determining, based on the first detection data, a first point in time corresponding to the actuation of the operating element by the user (id., recording and evaluating the propagation time of the various output signals from the relevant loudspeakers L1-LN to the microphones M1-MN); and
determining, based on the second detection data, a second point in time corresponding to an output of the acoustic signal (id.).
Regarding claim 20, Stadler discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a software program executable on one or more processors to carry out the method of claim 19 (e.g. at least diagnostic device 12, see e.g. at least ¶ 29, Fig. 1, and related text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662