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 April 27, 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, & 7-10 are currently pending. Claims 2 & 6 are cancelled.
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted April 27, 2026 have overcome the 35 USC 112(a), 35 USC 112(b), and 35 USC 101 rejections from the Non-final Rejection filed January 26, 2026.
Further, the claims are no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The amendments to the claims submitted April 27, 2026 have not overcome the prior art rejections from the Non-final rejection filed January 26, 2026 for the reasons below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 8 of the arguments, the applicant argues that Krüger does not disclose receiving and storing a request assignment that defines a conditional trigger associated with the location and time of day. However, the examiner believes this is not the case due to the updated rejection below, specifically section 11(a) and 11(b).
The applicant further argues Krüger does not disclose determining whether a conditional trigger is satisfied. However, the examiner disagrees in view of the updated rejection below, specifically section 11(b). In particular, the examiner, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, believes the term “initiate” of [0018] implies a conditional trigger which is satisfied based on the location, time, and/or weather.
The applicant also argues Krüger does not disclose that the sensor system is maintained in normal operation outside the specified region, and only carries out a precision operation when the trigger is satisfied. However, the examiner disagrees in view of the updated rejection below, specifically section 11(c).
The applicant argues on pg. 8-9 of the arguments that the server of Krüger determines which vehicles are relevant and transmits configuration data to the vehicles, whereas the claims require the vehicle receive and store the request assignment. The examiner disagrees in view of the updated rejection below, specifically section 11(b). In particular, the control unit of the vehicle of [0019] which would inherently contain a processor and memory of which to store requests from the server.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
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 sensor system of a vehicle, the sensor system including at least one sensor, 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. [0029] discloses the detection apparatus (i.e. sensor system), 23, comprising at least one sensor):
receiving, by a control device of the vehicle comprising at least one processor and from a source external to 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 (Krüger [0013]-[0015] & [0029], Examiner Note: Krüger discloses when an event (e.g. a pothole) is detected, a server device (i.e. source external to the vehicle) a second motor vehicle is sent a request to look at the event (i.e. specific region) in more detail using configuration data, 26, (i.e. request assignment) by the server device, 11, (i.e. evaluation unit) using detection apparati, 23 & 27 (i.e. sensor systems). [0018] the specific region can be observed at a specific requested time. [0019] discloses that the configuration data is used by the control unit of the motor vehicle (i.e. processor and memory));
storing, by the control device, the request assignment such that the request enable signal is associated with the specific region of the map and the specific time-of-day interval, thereby setting a conditional trigger; determining, by the control device, based on the stored request assignment, and using the map, whether the conditional trigger has been satisfied by the vehicle being is in the specific region during the specific time-of-day interval (Krüger [0018]-[0019] Examiner Note: Krüger discloses that the configuration data is used by the control unit of the motor vehicle (i.e. processor and memory). Krüger further states the second event data is initiated (i.e. the trigger has been satisfied) based on (i.e. conditional trigger) the location and/or time (i.e. time-of-day and region));
activating, by the control device using the request enable signal, the sensor system, when a result of the determining is that the conditional trigger has been satisfied by the vehicle being is in the specific region during the specific time-of-day interval, wherein the sensor system is maintained in normal operation outside of the specific region and the specific time-of-day interval and is activated based on the determining to carry out a precision operation in which the sensor system generates surroundings data with higher accuracy and/or higher resolution than in the normal operation interval (Krüger [0018]-[0019] Examiner Note: Krüger discloses that the configuration data is used by the control unit of the motor vehicle (i.e. processor and memory). Krüger further states the second event data is initiated (i.e. the trigger has been satisfied) based on (i.e. conditional trigger) the location and/or time (i.e. time-of-day and region). [0015] Krüger discloses that the second motor vehicle with the second event data (i.e. precision operation) is configured to be more accurate than the first motor vehicle (i.e. normal operation interval)).
Regarding Claim 3, Krüger discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein, in the normal operation of the sensor system, the control device uses the map and the surroundings data to ascertain whether the surroundings of the vehicle are being acquired by the sensor system with a minimum quality, wherein the sensor system is activated by the control device using the request enable signal only when the surroundings of the vehicle are being acquired by the sensor system 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 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 sensor system is activated by the control device 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 sensor system (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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaal, Zoltan (US 2020/0263993 A1) discloses a campaign management platform used to update digital map data in a geographic area.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights