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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed August 5, 2026. Claims 1, and 11 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-12, and 14-16 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 5, 2026 with respect to the previous invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered. Applicant argues the submitted declaration by Inventor establishes these claim terms comprise sufficient structure on their own without requiring additional disclosure from Applicant’s Specification. Applicant argues the submitted Declaration establishes the terms at issue are known terms tied to specific hardware and therefore the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 should be withdrawn.
Examiner notes the claims recite the generic placeholder “module” without sufficient structural modifiers and therefore the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Additionally, consistent with MPEP 716.09, the declaration appears to be opinion and not supported by evidence as to what was known at the time of filing. Similarly, although the declaration includes real-world examples, it is unclear what was known to a person of ordinary skill at the time of filing regarding these real-world examples.
For at least the above, the previous invocation and corresponding rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed August 5, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Baldwin et al., US 20180012492 A1, hereinafter referred to as Baldwin, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended, specifically, wherein the processing module is configured to decide how to operate one or more of a steering wheel, an accelerator pedal, and a brake pedal of the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle based on said one or more extracted pieces of information to navigate the level-crossing zone. Applicant argues Baldwin is limited to disclosing providing instructions to apply brakes in response to a railroad crossing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue Baldwin fails to explicitly disclose operating a steering wheel or accelerator pedal, however, claim 1 recites three options in the alternative, i.e., “one or more,” which limits the scope of the claim as only requiring one of the three listed alternatives. If Applicant wishes to require more than one listed option, Examiner suggests amending the claim accordingly.
However, Baldwin explicitly discloses controlling vehicle movement according to various counter measures in response to information transmitted by infrastructure (See at least ¶88 of Baldwin), wherein these counter measures may be commands to brake a vehicle via the vehicle’s brake system (See at least ¶108-109 and Figs. 3 and 4 of Baldwin), or steering commands (See at least ¶110 of Baldwin).
Baldwin fails to explicitly disclose performing its counter measures with respect to pedals or a steering wheel. However, it is unquestionably and readily obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art that steering wheels and pedals are common parts of steering systems and braking systems, like the steering system and braking system of Baldwin.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 11, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Baldwin et al., US 20180012492 A1, hereinafter referred to as Baldwin, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 11, as presently amended, specifically, said components belonging to one or more of the following classes: traffic lights, barriers, road line markings, traffic signs, traffic bollards, level-crossing panels, audio warning devices, emergency call boxes, height restriction barriers. Applicant argues Baldwin’s disclosure is limited to a railroad crossing signal.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Baldwin explicitly discloses a location in which various pieces of common infrastructure are installed at a level-crossing including traffic lights, a rail-road crossing signal device, a construction zone warning device, etc., that all transmit various information to a vehicle so that the vehicle can maneuver this location (See at least ¶89 and 107 and Figs. 1 and 2 of Baldwin).
For at least the above reasons, the claims are obvious in view of the cited art of record.
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.
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 detecting module configured to,” “a receiving module configured to,” “a processing module configured to,” and “a transmitting module configured to,” in claims 1, 7-11, and 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12, and 14-16 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 claims contain 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.
As to claims 1, and 11, claim elements “a detecting module configured to,” “a receiving module configured to,” “a processing module configured to,” and “a transmitting module configured to,” are limitations that invoke 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 the claimed modules. Applicant’s Specification generically describes the modules in terms of their functions, i.e., a detecting module that detects characteristics, a receiving module that receives wirelessly communicated messages, a processing module that takes inputs and generates outputs, and a transmitting module that transmits messages wirelessly (See at least ¶62, 75, and 78, and Fig. 2 of Applicant’s PGPUB), as part of larger embedded system, however, Examiner is unable to find the corresponding structure in the Specification for the claimed modules, as Applicant’s Specification is entirely silent regarding what structure corresponds to the aforementioned modules. Applicant’s Specification appears to only describe the aforementioned modules in terms of the functions performed. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and claims 12, and 14-16 depend from claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12, and 14-16 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.
As to claims 1, and 11, claim elements “a detecting module configured to,” “a receiving module configured to,” “a processing module configured to,” and “a transmitting module configured to,” are limitations that invoke 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 the claimed modules. Applicant’s Specification generically describes the modules in terms of their functions, i.e., a detecting module that detects characteristics, a receiving module that receives wirelessly communicated messages, a processing module that takes inputs and generates outputs, and a transmitting module that transmits messages wirelessly (See at least ¶62, 75, and 78, and Fig. 2 of Applicant’s PGPUB), as part of larger embedded system, however, Examiner is unable to find the corresponding structure in the Specification for the claimed modules, as Applicant’s Specification is entirely silent regarding what structure corresponds to the aforementioned modules. Applicant’s Specification appears to only describe the aforementioned modules in terms of the functions performed. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and claims 12, and 14-16 depend from claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, 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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al., US 20180012492 A1, hereinafter referred to as Baldwin.
As to claim 1, Baldwin discloses an embedded system for controlling movement for an autonomous or semi-autonomous motorized road vehicle, the system comprising:
in the autonomous or semi-autonomous motorized road vehicle, at least one external sensor configured to perceive information on a nearby zone located at least in front of the motorized road vehicle (Autonomous vehicle equipped with various environmental sensors – See at least ¶3),
at least one detecting module configured to detect, based on the information perceived by said at least one external sensor, characteristics of the nearby zone (Computer system communicated with sensors to identify objects in environment – See at least ¶106);
a receiving module configured to receive, via wireless communication, at least one message transmitted by a fixed piece of infrastructure located in a level-crossing zone crossing a road over which said vehicle is moving (Electronic receiver receives message from roadside infrastructure – See at least ¶107); and
a processing module configured to automatically control the movement of the motorized road vehicle based either on characteristics detected by said at least one detecting module, or on said at least one message received by the receiving module (Autonomous vehicle computer system controls vehicle movement accordingly – See at least ¶88),
wherein the system is configured to:
extract, from said at least one received message, one or more pieces of information relating to a signaling and/or protecting system installed in said level-crossing zone and/or relating to one or more structural components of said signaling and/or protecting system (Railroad crossing transmits message which includes information regarding railroad crossing – See at least ¶89),
wherein the processing module is configured to decide how to operate one or more of steering, acceleration, or braking of the autonomous or semi-autonomous motorized road vehicle based on said one or more extracted pieces of information to navigate the level-crossing zone (Vehicle determines appropriate control in response to information transmitted by infrastructure – See at least ¶88; Braking – See at least ¶108-109 and Figs. 3 and 4; Steering – See at least ¶110).
Baldwin fails to explicitly disclose the above movement control with respect to pedals or a steering wheel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baldwin and include the feature of a steering wheel, or brake pedal as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is unquestionably and readily obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art that steering wheels and pedals are common parts of steering systems and braking systems, like the steering system and braking system of Baldwin.
As to claim 3, Baldwin discloses:
wherein said one or more extracted pieces of information comprise a set of indications relating to the structural components of said signaling and/or protecting system (Roadside infrastructure communicates various information regarding signaling and/or protecting – See at least ¶89 and Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein said components belonging to one or more of the following classes: traffic lights, barriers, road line markings, traffic signs, traffic bollards, level-crossing panels, audio warning devices, emergency call boxes, height restriction barriers (Roadside infrastructure may be various components including traffic signaling device, i.e., “traffic light,” and stop signs, i.e., “traffic signs,” – See at least ¶89 and Fig. 1).
As to claims 4, and 14, Baldwin discloses said set of indications comprises, for each class, a number of components and/or, for each component, geographical coordinates, and/or a size or shape, and/or a type, and/or an index of visibility from the road (Information regarding signal location – See at least ¶89).
As to claims 5, and 15, Baldwin discloses said set of indications further comprises:
for the class of barriers and/or for the class of traffic lights and/or for the class of emergency call boxes and/or for the class of audio warning devices: status information making it possible to indicate whether the component is faulty or operational; and/or
for the class of barriers: an angular speed of opening and closing of the barrier, and/or an angle of inclination of the barrier with respect to a horizon when the barrier is in a fully open or fully closed position, and/or an angle of the barrier with respect to a road layout as drawn on a horizontal plane, and/or a height of the barrier with respect to a ground, and/or a time taken to lower and/or open the barriers and/or a physical appearance; and/or
for the class of audio warning devices: an indication as to an audio frequency and/or loudness and/or variations in frequency or loudness and/or active or inactive status of the warning device; and/or
for the class of traffic lights: an indication as to the frequency at which they flash and/or an indication as to whether they flash synchronously or in alternation with other traffic lights of the system and/or a physical appearance (Signal phase – See at least ¶6); and/or
for the panel class: an indication relating to a physical appearance and/or a material used.
As to claims 6, and 16, Baldwin discloses extracting from said at least one received message one or more pieces of geometric information relating to roadways and railways intersecting in the level-crossing zone and/or to sections of overhead lines overlying a level crossing (Determine distance between vehicle and device location – See at least ¶109; Examiner notes distance is based on extracted location of signal origin which meets broadest reasonable interpretation of geometric information relating to railways.).
As to claim 7, Baldwin discloses said processing module is configured to assist said at least one detecting module with detecting structural characteristics corresponding to one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message (Computer system, i.e., “processing module,” executes control in response to structural information thereby “assisting” function of detecting module – See at least Abstract).
As to claim 8, Baldwin discloses the processing module is further configured to determine an entry boundary and/or an exit boundary and/or a presence of a level crossing and/or an open or closed status of the level crossing on a basis of at least detected structural characteristics corresponding to one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message and relating to one or more structural components of said signaling and/or protecting system (Railroad crossing location, i.e., “presence” – See at least ¶89).
As to claim 9, Baldwin fails to explicitly disclose said processing module is configured to determine, based on said one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message, whether said at least one external sensor and/or said at least one detecting module and/or the processing module are capable of handling crossing a level crossing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baldwin and include the feature of said processing module is configured to determine, based on said one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message, whether said at least one external sensor and/or said at least one detecting module and/or the processing module are capable of handling crossing a level crossing, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Baldwin explicitly discloses navigating the claimed roadway feature based with a vehicle computer system, i.e., processing module, sensors, etc., which implicitly includes a determination of whether the vehicle system is capable of performing this control because otherwise the intended purpose and result of navigating such a roadway feature would be inoperable, which would be readily and unquestionable recognizable by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 11, Baldwin discloses a fixed piece of infrastructure located in a level-crossing zone crossing a road, said fixed piece of infrastructure comprising:
a transmitting module configured to transmit messages via wireless communication (Roadside infrastructure – See at least ¶107),
wherein the transmitting module comprises, in at least one message to be transmitted, one or more pieces of information relating to a signaling and/or protecting system installed in said level-crossing zone, and/or relating to one or more structural components of said signaling and/or protecting system (Roadside infrastructure may be controls, signage, etc. – See at least ¶107), and
wherein said one or more pieces of information included in said at least one message to be transmitted comprise a set of indications relating to the structural components of said signaling and/or protecting system (Roadside infrastructure communicates various information regarding signaling and/or protecting – See at least ¶89 and Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein said components belonging to one or more of the following classes: traffic lights, barriers, road line markings, traffic signs, traffic bollards, level-crossing panels, audio warning devices, emergency call boxes, height restriction barriers (Roadside infrastructure may be various components including traffic signaling device, i.e., “traffic light,” and stop signs, i.e., “traffic signs,” – See at least ¶89 and Fig. 1).
Claims 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al., US 20180012492 A1, in view of Beaudry et al., US 10475341 B1, hereinafter referred to as Baldwin, and Beaudry, respectively.
As to claims 2, and 12, Baldwin fails to explicitly disclose said one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message comprises an indication defining a category of a level crossing in which the signaling and/or protecting system is installed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baldwin and include the feature of said one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message comprises an indication defining a category of a level crossing in which the signaling and/or protecting system is installed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Baldwin discloses various categories of level crossing, e.g., traffic signaling device, construction zone, railroad crossing, etc., (See at least ¶6-45 of Baldwin), and Beaudry teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle-to-infrastructure arts for infrastructure to report its own function (See at least Abstract of Beaudry). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Beaudry’s teaching of self-reporting would improve Baldwin’s ability to recognize the various forms of infrastructure already disclosed by Baldwin.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al., US 20180012492 A1, in view of Chase et al., US 20180335781 A1, hereinafter referred to as Baldwin, and Chase, respectively.
As to claim 10, Baldwin fails to explicitly disclose said processing module is configured to determine, based on said one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message, whether said motorized road vehicle is permitted, at least in terms of dimensions and/or weight, to cross a level crossing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baldwin and include the feature of said processing module is configured to determine, based on said one or more pieces of information extracted from said at least one received message, whether said motorized road vehicle is permitted, at least in terms of dimensions and/or weight, to cross a level crossing, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Chase teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts for a roadside beacon to store and transmit information regarding whether a vehicle is permitted to traverse a road segment based on vehicle dimensions (BBIS equipment stores and transmits height/weight limits – See at least ¶40 and 42 of Chase).
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights