DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 1, 5-13, 1-3, 1, 5, and 7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,008. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are broader recitations of claims 1-4, 1, 5-13, 1-3, 1, 5, and 7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,008.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections above under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-20, Harmer et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0187249 A1, hereinafter Harmer) in view of Lawrence et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0141724 A1, hereinafter Lawrence) represents the best art of record. However, Harmer in view of Lawrence fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 15.
Regarding claim 1, Harmer teaches a sensor calibration assembly (see Fig. 1 and 2, sensor calibration assembly 100) comprising: a base member (101): an upright member (236) extending from the base member (101); a coupling bracket (229) coupled to the upright member (236), the coupling bracket adjustably positionable along the length of the upright member (see Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0033], coupling bracket 229 adjustable along the upright member 236): a pitch bracket (230) coupled to the coupling bracket (229), the pitch bracket comprising a target mount (127): a target detachably coupled to the target mount (see Fig. 1, detachable targets 131a/131b coupled to the target mount 127); wherein the pitch bracket is configured for controlling a pitch motion of the target when the target is coupled to the target mount (see [0032], pitch bracket 230 is an angular-adjustment mechanism for pitch and tilt (rotation)).
Harmer fails to specifically teach that the pitch bracket comprises a hinge, wherein the hinge controls a pitch motion of the target mount with respect to the upright member.
However, as described above, Harmer teaches using an angular-adjustment mechanism (230) to adjust the pitch and tilt (rotation) of the targets (see [0032]-[0033]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Harmer such that hinges and knobs were utilized in the angular adjustment mechanism of Harmer for controlling pitch and roll. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized knobs and hinges to accomplish the fine adjustments of the pitch and tilt of the targets as suggested by Harmer (see [0032], discussion of fine adjustment control of the tilt/pitch of the targets).
Furthermore, Harmer fails to teach that the base member further comprises a viewing notch to align with a marking to aid in placement of the sensor calibration assembly in relation to the subject vehicle during a sensor calibration.
Lawrence teaches a sensor calibration assembly (see Fig. 14, sensor calibration assembly 20) comprising an alignment indicator configured to align with a marking of a ground mat to aid in placement of the base member in relation to a subject vehicle during a sensor calibration (see Fig. 14 and [0081]-[0082], rail 194 attaches and therefore aligns with markings 184 on the ground mat 28 relative to the vehicle 22 and thus is considered to aid in the placement of the base of stand 24 for calibration).
However, Lawrence also fails to critically teach that the alignment indicator is a viewing notch.
Regarding claim 9, Harmer teaches a sensor calibration assembly (see Fig. 1 and 2, sensor calibration assembly 100) comprising :a base member (101): an upright member (236) extending from the base member (101); a coupling bracket (229) coupled to the upright member (236), the coupling bracket adjustably positionable along the length of the upright member (see Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0033], coupling bracket 229 adjustable along the upright member 236): a pitch bracket (230) coupled to the coupling bracket (229), the pitch bracket comprising a target mount (127): a target detachably coupled to the target mount (see Fig. 1, detachable targets 131a/131b coupled to the target mount 127); wherein the pitch bracket is configured for controlling a roll motion of the target when the target is coupled to the target mount (see [0032], pitch bracket 230 is an angular-adjustment mechanism for pitch and tilt (rotation)).
Harmer fails to specifically teach that the pitch bracket comprises a hinge; and a roll knob controlling a roll motion of the target when the target is coupled to the target mount, wherein the hinge provides a degree of pitch motion to the target mount with respect to the upright member.
However, as described above, Harmer teaches using an angular-adjustment mechanism (230) to adjust the pitch and tilt (rotation) of the targets (see [0032]-[0033]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Harmer such that hinges and knobs were utilized in the angular adjustment mechanism of Harmer for controlling pitch and roll. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized knobs and hinges to accomplish the fine adjustments of the pitch and tilt of the targets as suggested by Harmer (see [0032], discussion of fine adjustment control of the tilt/pitch of the targets).
Additionally, Harmer fails to teach a mat having a first marking thereon indicating a first specified position of the mat in relation to a subject vehicle during a calibration of a sensor of the subject vehicle; and wherein the mat additionally comprises a second marking thereon indicating a second specified placement of the target assembly in relation to the subject vehicle during a sensor calibration; and the base member further comprises a viewing notch configured to align with the second marking to aid in placement of the target assembly in relation to the subject vehicle for a sensor calibration.
Lawrence teaches a sensor calibration assembly (see Fig. 14, sensor calibration assembly 20) comprising a mat having a first marking thereon indicating a first specified position of the mat in relation to a subject vehicle during a calibration of a sensor of the subject vehicle (see Fig. 14 and [0081]-[0082], rail 194 attaches and therefore aligns with first markings 184 on the ground mat 28 relative to the subject vehicle 22 and thus is considered to aid in the placement of the base of stand 24 for calibration); wherein the mat additionally comprises a second marking thereon indicating a second specified placement of the target assembly in relation to the subject vehicle during a sensor calibration (see [0082]-[0084], rail 194 is movable and mats include additional markings (cutouts for targets 188) for alignment of optional rigid arms 189, thereby considered by the Examiner as allowing the sensor calibration assembly 20 as being aligned with the general mat markings 184 or with the cutouts for the placement of the targets 188 via rigid arms 189); and an alignment indicator configured to align with a marking of a ground mat to aid in placement of the base member in relation to a subject vehicle during a sensor calibration (see Fig. 14 and [0081]-[0082], rail 194 attaches and therefore aligns with markings 184 on the ground mat 28 relative to the vehicle 22 and thus is considered to aid in the placement of the base of stand 24 for calibration).
However, Lawrence also fails to critically teach that the alignment indicator is a viewing notch.
Regarding claim 15, Harmer teaches a sensor calibration assembly (see Fig. 1 and 2, sensor calibration assembly 100) comprising: a base member (101): an upright member (236) extending from the base member (101); a coupling bracket (229) coupled to the upright member (236), the coupling bracket adjustably positionable along the length of the upright member (see Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0033], coupling bracket 229 adjustable along the upright member 236): a target detachably coupled to the coupling bracket (see Fig. 1, detachable targets 131a/131b coupled to the target mount 127 of the coupling bracket 229).
Harmer fails to specifically teach that the base member has a viewing notch, wherein the viewing notch aids in placement of the sensor calibration assembly in relation to the subject vehicle during a sensor calibration.
Lawrence teaches a sensor calibration assembly (see Fig. 14, sensor calibration assembly 20) comprising an alignment indicator configured to align with a marking of a ground mat to aid in placement of the base member in relation to a subject vehicle during a sensor calibration (see Fig. 14 and [0081]-[0082], rail 194 attaches and therefore aligns with markings 184 on the ground mat 28 relative to the vehicle 22 and thus is considered to aid in the placement of the base of stand 24 for calibration).
However, Lawrence also fails to critically teach that the alignment indicator is a viewing notch, such that the viewing notch aids in placement of the sensor calibration assembly in relation to the subject vehicle during a sensor calibration.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 1, 9, and 15 and the examiner can find no teachings for a sensor calibration as specifically claimed which includes an alignment indicator comprising a viewing notch, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights