DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to amendments/remarks dated 06/25/2026. Claims 1-17 have not been amended and are pending. Claims 1-17 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Abstract Objection
Examiner withdraws the abstract objection in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, on page 6, Applicant states: “In addition, Schulte teaches that a lack of response from the driver assistance system of the test vehicle is based solely on lateral lane separation (that is, FS1 # FS2), not on the dimensioning of a device located in the track, as is required by the claimed subject matter.” Examiner disagrees with the assertion that the claimed subject matter requires the device be located on a “track”. The claims as written make no mention of a track nor that the device must be located in/on such a structure. Therefore, Schulte need not teach that a lack of response from the driver assistance system of the vehicle must be based on dimensioning of a device located in a track.
Secondly, on page 7, Applicant states:
“On the other hand, in claim 1, the recited "base" is always "in the path of the vehicle," irrespective of whether the claimed "test body" is located in the first position thereof or in the second position thereof.
Therefore, Schulte fails to teach/suggest the claimed "base [being positioned] in the path of the vehicle ... when the test body is in the first position," as recited in claim 1.
In addition, Schulte fails to teach/suggest the claimed "base [being positioned] in the path of the vehicle ... when the test body is in the second position," as recited in claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees that claim 1 describes the recited “base” being always in the path of the vehicle. Claim 1 states, inter alia, “… wherein the device can be positioned in the path of the vehicle …”, emphasis added. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the device may be positioned in the path of the vehicle, yet claim 1 does not explicitly state that the device is always positioned in the path of the vehicle. This merely states that the device is capable of being placed in the path of the vehicle. Therefore, Schulte need not teach that which is not explicitly claimed.
Lastly, on page 7, Applicant states:
“Applicant wishes to address the Examiner's allegation that "[a]n adjacent lane is still in a path of a vehicle if it were to turn." See page 3 of the Action. A vehicle is on a different lane if it turns; and therefore, an adjacent lane is not in the actual path of the vehicle." Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that an adjacent lane is not in the actual path of a vehicle. Per Applicant’s own specification, a path may simply be a production area that is traversed by the vehicle; see page 3, lines 19-20: “The path of the vehicle is here in particular to be understood as the zone, for example a track or a production area that is traversed by the vehicle as a result of its movement.” Therefore, in a future state (t+1), an adjacent lane may be a path for a vehicle as it could become an area that is traversed by the vehicle as a result of its movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Schulte (DE 102008008665 B3; hereafter Schulte).
Schulte was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Schulte teaches A device (test device 3) for testing protective equipment of a vehicle (test vehicle 1), wherein the protective equipment (adaptive cruise control system 8) has at least one sensor (one or more sensors) for monitoring a path of the vehicle and the device comprises a base (first carrier part 6) and a test body movably arranged at the base (target device 5), wherein the test body is movable from a first position into a second position (At least page 7, ¶ 2 “The target device 5 can be moved between a first position within the first lane FS1 and a second position outside the first lane and in the second lane FS2 back and forth.”), and wherein the device can be positioned in the path of the vehicle and is dimensioned such that the device in the path of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor or no safety related action of the protective equipment is triggered on a detection of the test body when the test body is in the first position (At least page 8, ¶ 4 “In the lower half of the 3 is the target device 5 in the first position, in which it is arranged in the first lane FS1 of the carrier vehicle.” Also, see FIG. 3 lower portion. This configuration would not cause a safety related action by the vehicle as this is simulating a car in an adjacent lane (i.e. lane FS1). An adjacent lane is still in a path of a vehicle if it were to turn.) and the test body is detectable by the sensor and a safety related action of the protective equipment is triggered on the detection of the test body when the test body is in the second position (At least page 8, ¶ 4 “In the upper half of the 3 located on the second support part 7 fixed target device 5 in its second position, so that it is arranged in the second lane FS2.” Also, see FIG. 3 upper portion. This configuration would cause a safety related action by the vehicle (i.e. deceleration) as this configuration is simulating a car moving in front of the test vehicle (i.e. into lane FS2). FIG. 1 shows the detection range 4 being able to detect the target device 5 when it is moved into position 2.).
Regarding claim 2, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an automated guided vehicle (At least page 2, ¶ 1 “In such an adaptive Cruise control will adjust the position and speed the preceding vehicle with one or more sensors and determined the speed and distance of the following equipped with this system Vehicle accordingly adaptively regulated with engine and brake intervention.).
Regarding claim 3, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the test body is displaceable between the first position and the second position (At least page 7, ¶ 2 “The target device 5 can be moved between a first position within the first lane FS1 and a second position outside the first lane and in the second lane FS2 back and forth.”).
Regarding claim 4, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the test body is pivotable between the first position and the second position (At least page 9, ¶ 2 “The pivotable mounting of the target device 5 on the second carrier part 7 may also be provided in a test device which is used statically. The pivoting mechanism for the target device can also be used on other mobile test systems, in which the second carrier part with the attached target device 5 is not pivotable laterally to the direction of movement of the carrier vehicle.” Additionally, see FIG. 6.).
Regarding claim 5, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the device has a mount for an external power source (running beams 13. See FIG. 2. An external power source could easily be mounted on either of the running beams 13.).
Regarding claim 6, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the device has a distance sensor for determining a distance between the device and the vehicle (At least page 7, ¶ 6 “You want can not rely on the data of the test vehicle, so the Test device or the test vehicle with a device for Determining the distance and the relative speed equipped be. For this example, a laser scanner can be used, which is preferably arranged near the target device of the test device is.”).
Regarding claim 7, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 6, wherein a control and evaluation unit (control unit 10) is configured to control the device such that the test body is moved from the first position into the second position in dependence on the distance between the device and the vehicle (At least page 7, ¶ 5 “a control unit 10 , which have a computing unit 11 and a control device 12 is used to drive the actuator of the test device to spend the target device from the second position to the first position (see. 5 ). The arithmetic unit is expediently for data exchange in particular the relative speed between the target device and the test vehicle and / or a distance between the target device 5 and the test vehicle 1 …”).
Regarding claim 8, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 7, wherein the test body is moved from the first position into the second position when falling below a specified distance between the device and the vehicle (At least page 4, ¶ 5 “It is also a unit for determining the distance between the Target device and the test vehicle provided, which falls below a predetermined threshold for the distance the target device from the second to the first position is available.”).
Regarding claim 9, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 8, wherein the specified distance is smaller than an extent of a protected field of the protective equipment in a direction of travel of the vehicle (At least page 8, ¶ 1 “the exceeding of a (distance) threshold ATH by the test vehicle 1 monitored, the control device 12 the test device 3 reaches or exceeds the "pre-warning" condition 1 a threshold ITH, the controller of the test device is driven by the control device to the target device from the second position, in which they are in the second lane of the test vehicle 1 is to spend in the first position and thus behind the carrier vehicle.” When the target device 5 is between ITH and ATH (See Fig. 1), this indicates that the distance between the device (i.e. target device 5) and vehicle (i.e. test vehicle 1) is less than the length of the protected field (i.e. detection range of the adaptive cruise control system 4).).
Regarding claim 10, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 6, wherein a control and evaluation unit (control unit 10) is configured to determine a speed of the vehicle (At least page 7, ¶ 5 “a control unit 10 , which have a computing unit 11 and a control device 12 is used to drive the actuator of the test device to spend the target device from the second position to the first position (see. 5 ). The arithmetic unit is expediently for data exchange in particular the relative speed between the target device and the test vehicle and / or a distance between the target device 5 and the test vehicle 1 …”).
Regarding claim 11, Schulte teaches The device in accordance with claim 10, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to record a time progression of the speed and of the distance of the device from the vehicle (At least page 7, ¶ 4 “The danger of a collision between the test vehicle 1 and the aiming device 5 depends on the distance and the relative speed between these two partners. The time until which a collision is still avoidable is called time-to-collision ttc. By using the test system described, it is possible to safely test situations with ttc = 0.6 s or less.” The determination of a ttc figure indicates that the speed of the vehicle and a distance from the device to the vehicle would be charted with respect to time. Additionally, see page 7, ¶ 5 which describes the processing unit of the test device 3: “The arithmetic unit is expediently for data exchange in particular the relative speed between the target device and the test vehicle and / or a distance between the target device 5 and the test vehicle 1.”).
Claim 12 recites a method performed by the device presented in claim 1, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Claim 13 recites a method performed by the device presented in claim 8, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Claim 14 recites a method performed by the device presented in claim 9, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Claim 15 recites a method performed by the device presented in claim 11, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Claim 16 recites a method performed by the device presented in claim 11, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Claim 17 recites a method performed by the device presented in claim 2, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Morrisey, IV (US Pub. 2021/0192874 A1)
Moore et al. (US Pat. 9,651,458 B2)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights