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
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on September 27, 2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. DE10 2023 210 177.7, filed on October 18, 2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 27, 2024 & October 29, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed October 30, 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it is identical to the IDS filed on September 27, 2024¸ and therefore redundant. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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:
… an evaluation unit… examiner has not found sufficient structure in the original disclosure for this limitation.
…surroundings acquisition device… examiner has not found sufficient structure in the original disclosure for this limitation.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As shown above, the written description of the surroundings acquisition device and evaluation unit are lacking structure to make a sufficient claim to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The surroundings acquisition device, for example, lacks a processor and memory that would require to acquire details on the surroundings.
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 1-10 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 limitations surroundings acquisition device and evaluation unit 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 performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. None of the limitations recited above contain mention to any kind of structure which in this case may include a processor and non-transitory memory. 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “[computer program],” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not directed to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by [excluding transitory signals]).
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 1-3, 5-7, & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0347872 A1, to Krüger.
Regarding Claim 1, Krüger discloses A method for operating a surroundings acquisition device of a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps (Krüger Abstract, Examiner Note: Kruger discloses a method for detecting events consisting of the environment of a surroundings of a vehicle):
receiving, by an evaluation unit of the vehicle, an external acquisition request that contains at least one request assignment in which a request enable signal is assigned to a specific region of a map and a specific time-of-day interval; ascertain, using the map, whether the vehicle is in the specific region during the time-of-day interval; and activating, by the evaluation using the request enable signal, the surroundings acquisition device, when the vehicle is in the specific region during the time-of-day interval (Krüger [0013]-[0015], Examiner Note: Krüger discloses when an event (e.g. a pothole) is detected, a second motor vehicle is sent a request to look at the event (i.e. specific region) in more detail (i.e. request assignment) by the server device, 11, (i.e. evaluation unit) using detection apparati, 23 & 27 (i.e. surroundings acquisition device). [0018] the specific region can be observed at a specific requested time).
Regarding Claim 2, Krüger discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the surroundings acquisition device is activated by the evaluation unit using the request enable signal to carry out a precision operation in which the surroundings acquisition device generates surroundings data with higher accuracy and/or higher resolution than in a normal operation (Krüger [0030], Examiner Note: Krüger discloses the detection apparatus of the second vehicle, 27, collecting data at a higher volume and in more detail (e.g. camera image) (i.e. higher accuracy and resolution) which was not in the original event data (i.e. normal operation) from the first vehicle).
Regarding Claim 3, Krüger discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein, in the normal operation of the surroundings acquisition device, the evaluation unit uses the map and the surroundings data to ascertain whether the surroundings of the vehicle are being acquired by the surroundings acquisition device with a minimum quality, wherein the surroundings acquisition device is activated by the evaluation unit using the request enable signal only when the surroundings of the vehicle are being acquired by the surroundings acquisition device with the minimum quality or with a quality above the minimum quality (Krüger [0032], Examiner Note: Krüger discloses that the normal operation is when the first vehicle acquires event data details such as a predetermined radius (i.e. minimum quality) which then triggers the second detection apparatus (i.e. activated by) which collects information about the pothole in higher quality (i.e. quality above minimum quality)).
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 5 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 6 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 7 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 7 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 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.
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.
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.
Claims 4 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0347872 A1, to Krüger .
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, Krüger discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the surroundings acquisition device is activated by the evaluation unit using the request enable signal such that a specific observation angle…of the surroundings of the vehicle in the specific region is acquired with the surroundings acquisition device (Krüger [0013]-[0015], Examiner Note: Krüger discloses the second vehicle being told to focus at a specific event which would require a specific angle to collect more detail).
Krüger discloses the claimed invention except for …range…. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to require the device to look at a specific range of angle values in order to observe the event in greater detail (Krüger [0015]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2007/0282524 A1, to Tanizaki et al. discloses a map delivering server which requests map delivery of a particular area at a particular time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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 T DOWLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3666