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 .
In applicant’s response filed 08/03/2026, claims 6, 13, and 20 have been amended. No claims are new.
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: in claim “an augmented positioning system configured to output a parking instruction signal…” in claim 1 and “an indicator configured to indicate a location of an available parking space…” in claim 5.
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.
Paragraph 6: augmented positioning system includes: a memory having parking-assist executable instructions stored therein; and a processor configured to execute the parking-assist executable instructions to cause the indicator to indicate the location of the available parking space based on the parking instruction signal.
Paragraph 6: the indicator includes at least one of a display and a speaker,
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 § 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.
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 1, 5-7, 8, 12-14, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Reyher et al. (US 20100259420 A1) in view of Wood et al. (US 11269026 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Von Reyher teaches, A system for use with a vehicle, said system comprising: (See abstract)
a … [sensor] configured to measure a […wave] in an area and to output an area signal based on the […wave] in the area; and (Von Reyher discloses sensors mounted to a vehicle that measure the surrounding area and output signals based on those measurements. See figs. 3a-3d, ultrasonic waves 2a, paragraph 67, Each of the ultrasonic sensors 2 emits ultrasonic waves to the outer periphery of the vehicle and can detect objects around the vehicle on the basis of the reflected waves…paragraph 77, while the parking assist system's own vehicle is moved forward inside a parking lot, the ultrasonic sensors 2 detect objects around the vehicle and measure a parking space (a parking area) having the potential for the parking assist system's own vehicle to park in (S100)…paragraph 98, the ultrasonic sensors 2 are used as the distance sensors, but the distance sensors are not limited to these; for example, radar sensors such as millimeter wave sensors or microwave sensors may also be used.)
an augmented positioning system configured to output a parking instruction signal based on the area signal. (See fig. 2, parking assist ECU 1. Also see paragraph 78, when the parking assist system's own vehicle passes the side of the parking space, as shown in FIGS. 3B to 3D, the front side ultrasonic sensor 2a detects the corner portion C1 of the near vehicle, detects the pair of wheel stops X1 located in the parking space formed between the two vehicles, and detects the corner portion C2 of the far vehicle (S100). Also see paragraph 80, the parking assist system directly processes the sensor area signal to determine parking availability and then outputs a parking instruction: “when a parking space in which the parking assist system's own vehicle can park has been detected (YES in S110), the parking target position calculating unit 1b of the parking assist ECU 1 calculates the parking target position Y5”…paragraph 82, When the parking target position Y5 is calculated, the parking assist ECU 1 instructs the driver to stop the parking assist system's own vehicle (S130). This stop instruction is a parking instruction signal that is directly based on the area signal. Also see paragraphs 58, 83-84, a driver can easily park the parking assist system's own vehicle in the parking target position by performing the vehicle operations in accordance with the vehicle operation instructions displayed on the display device 3.)
Von Reyher does not specifically teach, a quantum material magnetometer configured to measure a magnetic field in an area
Wood further teaches, a quantum material magnetometer configured to measure a magnetic field in an area (See col. 1, line 10-12, magnetometers based on quantum systems with quantum spin states…col. 2, lines 32-37, a detector to measure a signal from the quantum system indicative of the accumulated phase at a measurement time after the setting of the quantum state; a processor to determine a magnetic field measurement based on the signal measured by the detector. Also see col. 3, lines 9-16, The quantum system way comprise a nitrogen vacancy centre in diamond. Lastly see col. 6, lines 4-10, A processor 204 is connected to detector 203 and determines a magnetic field measurement based on the signal measured by the detector 203.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the sensor system of Von Reyher to further comprise quantum material magnetometer taught by Wood because doing so would have yielded the predictable benefit of improved measurement sensitivity and reduced detection error, directly addressing the measurement error problem expressly acknowledged by Von Reyher at paragraph 7, “in conventional parking assist systems, there has been the problem that error in the measurement of corner positions of parked vehicles is large.”
In regards to claim 5, Von Reyher-Wood teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: an indicator configured to indicate a location of an available parking space for the vehicle, (See paragraph 72, The display device 3 is, for example, disposed in a position (in the instrument panel, etc.) where the driver can see it inside the vehicle cabin… the display device 3 can display the parking target position, the trajectories for guiding the parking assist system's own vehicle to the parking target position, the vehicle operation method for moving the parking assist system's own vehicle to the parking target position,) wherein said augmented positioning system comprises: a memory having parking-assist executable instructions stored therein; and a processor configured to execute the parking-assist executable instructions to cause said system to cause said indicator to indicate the location of the available parking space based on the parking instruction signal. (See paragraph 57, The main hardware configuration of the parking assist ECU 1 is, for example, configured from a CPU (Central Processing Unit) that performs arithmetic processing, control processing, etc., a ROM (Read Only Memory) in which control programs, etc. are stored, and a RAM (Random Access Memory) that temporarily stores data. The CPU, the ROM and the RAM are interconnected via a data bus, for example.)
In regards to claim 6, Von Reyher-Wood teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a second quantum material magnetometer configured to measure a second magnetic field in a second area and to output a second area signal based on the second magnetic field in the second area, wherein the area is one of a different location as compared to the second area, a different size as compared to the second area, or a combination thereof, and wherein said augmented positioning system is configured to output the parking instruction signal additionally based on the second area signal. (According to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B), mere duplication of working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Claim 1 already recites one magnetometer. Merely adding a second to sense an additional area is duplication of the working part. The applicant’s new claim recites no new or unexpected result from the second magnetometer. The second magnetometer simply feeds the same augmented positioning system to do the same thing (e.g. output a parking instruction). Von Reyher discloses in paragraphs 68-70, four front ultrasonic sensors, a pair of left and right front side ultrasonic sensors, and four rear ultrasonic sensors. These ultrasonic sensors sense front, sides, and behind the vehicle. Furthermore, Von Reyher combines information from multiple sensor readings at different locations to detect the parking area and generate guidance. The readings can detect corner C1, the wheel stops, and corner C2 as the vehicle moves, and uses all of that together (See figs. 3C-3D, 5A-5B and associated paragraphs). Lastly see Wood col. 1, line 10-12, magnetometers based on quantum systems with quantum spin states…col. 2, lines 32-37, a detector to measure a signal from the quantum system indicative of the accumulated phase at a measurement time after the setting of the quantum state; a processor to determine a magnetic field measurement based on the signal measured by the detector. Also see col. 3, lines 9-16, The quantum system way comprise a nitrogen vacancy centre in diamond. Lastly see col. 6, lines 4-10, A processor 204 is connected to detector 203 and determines a magnetic field measurement based on the signal measured by the detector 203.))
In regards to claim 7, Von Reyher-Wood teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:a drive assist system configured to modify a position, a velocity, an acceleration, or combination thereof, of the vehicle based on the parking instruction signal,wherein the vehicle comprises an automated vehicle. (See paragraph 100, the parking assist ECU 1 may also perform automatic control to automatically park the parking assist system's own vehicle in the parking target position on the basis of the parking area that has been detected by the ultrasonic sensors 2. In this case, the parking assist ECU 1 may also perform automatic control to automatically park the parking assist system's own vehicle in the parking target position by calculating vehicle trajectories and a vehicle control procedure that guide the parking assist system's own vehicle to the parking target position and, as shown in FIG. 6, controlling an engine ECU 12 that controls the drive force of the parking assist system's own vehicle, a steering ECU 13 that controls the steering of the parking assist system's own vehicle, a brake ECU 14 that controls the brake force of the parking assist system's own vehicle, and a transmission ECU 15 that controls the variable speed position of the parking assist system's own vehicle.)
Claims 8 and 12-14 are similar in scope to claims 1 and 5-7, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are similar in scope to claims 1 and 5-6, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Reyher et al. (US 20100259420 A1) in view of Wood et al. (US 11269026 B2), and further in view of Toutov et al. (US 20220026217 A1)
In regards to claim 2, Von Reyher-Wood teaches the system of claim 1.
Von Reyher-Wood does not specifically teach, further comprising a memory having a magnetic field map database stored therein, the magnetic field map database including data associated with a previously recorded magnetic field of the area.
Toutov further teaches, further comprising a memory having a magnetic field map database stored therein, (See paragraph 35, The magnetic navigation device 150 includes a processing system 152 in communication with a memory 154 containing a magnetic navigation application 155… the memory 154 can also be utilized to store additional data including (but not limited to) geomagnetic map information, UI map information (e.g. map tile image files), or navigation information. Also see paragraph 32, magnetic navigation devices in particular embodiments store the geomagnetic map information or additional map information required to render UIs in memory on the magnetic navigation device and are able perform localization or navigation in the absence of network connectivity. )
the magnetic field map database including data associated with a previously recorded magnetic field of the area. (See paragraph 24, magnetic measurements made by magnetic navigation devices are utilized to create and continuously update geomagnetic map information. In this way, accurate geomagnetic maps that are updated in response to changes in an environment can be made available within the magnetic navigation system. Also see paragraph 27, The Earth's geomagnetic field (GMF) can be utilized to determine location. The Earth's GMF is locally unique and can depend on a number of factors including magnetic anomalies, artificial electromagnetic fields, or seasonal or diurnal variations… magnetic navigation systems in particular embodiments can utilize measurements obtained via variety of different magnetic navigation devices to construct geomagnetic maps with sufficient resolution to provide localization with sufficient accuracy. The geomagnetic map information stored in memory thus constitutes data associated with a previously recorded magnetic field of the area, as the map is updated from magnetic measurements previously captured)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Von Reyher-Wood to further comprise memory-stored magnetic field map database system of Toutov because Toutov teaches at paragraph 32 and 35 that storing previously recorded geomagnetic map information enables localization and navigation “in the absence of network connectivity”, providing the predictable benefit of enabling the system to function reliably in GPS-denied environments such as underground parking garages.
In regards to claim 3, Von Reyher-Wood-Toutov teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the magnetic field map database includes local magnetic field databases including data associated with magnetic fields at different areas, (See Toutov paragraph 28, the navigation system can also incorporate regional data servers (also interchangeably herein referred to as regional magnetic data services, regional mapping servers, regional navigational servers, regional servers) that communicate with the main mapping server and provide magnetic mapping data collected based upon measurements made by magnetic navigation devices…paragraph 33, The regional server systems can transmit geomagnetic map data 114 to magnetic navigation devices 110 within a geographic region (102-108) and receive magnetic measurement information.) wherein the data associated with magnetic fields at each respective area of the different areas is created from an accumulation a plurality of data as output from different quantum material magnetometers, each of which is configured to measure magnetic fields. (See Wood col. 1, line 10-12, magnetometers based on quantum systems with quantum spin states…col. 2, lines 32-37, a detector to measure a signal from the quantum system indicative of the accumulated phase at a measurement time after the setting of the quantum state; a processor to determine a magnetic field measurement based on the signal measured by the detector. Also see col. 3, lines 9-16, The quantum system way comprise a nitrogen vacancy centre in diamond. Lastly see col. 6, lines 4-10, A processor 204 is connected to detector 203 and determines a magnetic field measurement based on the signal measured by the detector 203. Also see Toutov paragraph 37, the regional data servers 112 can be configured to accumulate transmitted magnetic measurement information 114 received from magnetic navigation devices 110. The accumulated magnetic measurement data can be used to generate updated geomagnetic map information for specific regions…paragraph 29, The regional data servers can process the data received from magnetic navigation devices to continuously update and refine local geomagnetic map data or geomagnetic map patch data sets…paragraph 48, magnetometers…paragraph 31, Examples of magnetic navigation devices 110 can include (but are not limited to) mobile phones, vehicle navigation systems, UAV navigation systems, or any other devices capable of receiving geomagnetic map information, capturing magnetic measurements or transmitting information based upon the magnetic measurements.)
In regards to claim 4, Von Reyher-Wood-Toutov teaches the system of claim 3, wherein said memory additionally has a seasonal magnetic field map database stored therein, the seasonal magnetic field map database including data associated with a previously recorded magnetic field of the area based on a plurality of different time periods. (See Toutov paragraph 27, The Earth's GMF is locally unique and can depend on a number of factors including magnetic anomalies, artificial electromagnetic fields, or seasonal or diurnal variations…paragraph 51, seasonal variations that can affect the local magnetic field. This directly discloses that the magnetic field map database contains data that accounts for seasonal variations. Also see paragraph 57, magnetic measurements can be transitioned from a previous measurement to a new measurement with interpolation of mapping data…paragraph 54, Magnetic measurements that take into account the change in data over time can be illustrated by equation 2 below:
M=[Hx(t1) . . . Hx(tN)Hy(t1) . . . Hy(tN)Hz(t1) . . . Hz(tN)] (2). Lastly see fig. 15 and paragraph 78)
Claims 9-11 are similar in scope to claims 2-4, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 16-18 are similar in scope to claims 2-4, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretation of “augmented positioning system” (claim 1) and “indicator” (claim 5) under 35 USC 112f have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Both interpretations are maintained, for the reasons set forth below.
For both “augmented positioning system” (claim 1) and “indicator” (claim 5), applicant asserts that these terms should not be interpreted under 112f, but provides no supporting reasoning and identifies no structure recited in the claim that performs the claimed function. The assertion does not rebut the interpretation.
Under MPEP 2181, the absence of the word “means” is not dispositive. A claim limitation invokes 112f where a generic placeholder is modified by functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Here, “system” is a recognized non-structural generic placeholder (MPEP 2181), and it is modified solely by the functional language “configured to output…”. The term “augmented positioning system” does not connote a particular structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. All three prongs of the 112f analysis are therefore met.
Also, “indicator” is another generic placeholder that does not connote sufficiently definite structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. The term is modified solely by the functional language, “indicate a location…” without sufficient structure being recited in the claim. All three prongs of the 112f analysis are therefore met.
The corresponding structure for “…system” is memory and processor and “indicator” is at least one of a display and a speaker as noted above.
Therefore, the 35 USC 112f interpretation is maintained.
Furthermore, applicant’s argument regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC 103 over Von Reyher in view of Wood have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Each argument is addressed in turn below.
Applicant’s argument that Wood does not show use in a vehicle parking assist system, and there is no showing of parking-space detection, occupancy discrimination, or GPS augmentation
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 and other independent claims. Claim 1 only requires a quantum material magnetometer that measures a magnetic field in an area and outputs an area signal, and an augmented positioning system that outputs a parking instruction signal based on the area signal. Claim 1 does not recite parking-space detection, occupancy discrimination, or GPS augmentation. The features applicant relies on are not claimed, and arguments directed to unclaimed features are not persuasive. The prior art only requires to teach the limitation as claimed, which it does.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., parking-space detection, occupancy discrimination, or GPS augmentation.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument that improved sensitivity alone is not enough unless the art shows the sensor modality is suitable for the application, and the combination would require different integration, calibration, and signal processing
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument as well as arguments 3-4 below all assume the claimed “application” or “role” requires parking-space detection, occupancy discrimination, real-world parking lot performance, or particular integration and calibration. However, claim 1 requires none of these. It only requires a magnetometer that measures a magnetic field in an area and outputs an area signal, and augmented positioning system that outputs a parking instruction signal based on that signal. Similar to response to argument 1 above, applicant argues on features that are not claimed.
Regarding motivation, the prior non-final Office Action stated that it would have been obvious to modify Von Reyher’s sensor system to incorporate the quantum material magnetometer of Wood, because doing so gives the predictable benefit of improved sensitivity and reduced error, which directly addresses the measurement error problem Von Reyher itself identifies at paragraph 7. This is a known component with a known function combined with a known device to give a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143 (I). The motivation comes from Wood’s stated benefit and from a problem Von Reyher admits, not from hindsight.
Regarding suitability and integration, suitability is judged against what claim 1 requires, and Wood shows a magnetometer measuring a magnetic field and outputting a signal, which is what exactly claim 1 requires. Wood does not need to show the magnetometer already used in a parking system. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Integration, signal processing, and calibration are routine and are not claimed, and applicant provides no evidence that they would be beyond ordinary skill or would give unexpected results. This argument without any evidence does not overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s argument that a quantum magnetometer works on a different physical principle and would destroy Von Reyher’s principle of operation
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2143.01 (IV) cites In re Ratti, and whether the modification is viewed as adding Wood’s magnetometer to Von Reyher’s system or as substituting it for Von Reyher’s sensor, In re Ratti does not apply here. Von Reyher’s principle of operation is sensing the environment to detect a parking area and generate parking guidance. That principle does not depend on using an ultrasonic sensor only specifically, and Von Reyher paragraph 98 confirms the sensor type is not treated as essential. The modification does not require rebuilding Von Reyher and does not change its principle of operation.
Also, applicant’s point that this introduces a different sensing principle also does not fit the claim. Claim 1 requires a quantum magnetometer measuring a magnetic field, and Wood teaches a quantum magnetometer measuring a magnetic field. The question is not whether ultrasonic and magnetic sensing differ, but whether the prior art teaches the claimed magnetometer doing what the claim requires and Wood does.
Applicant’s argument that there is no reasonable expectation of success or predictable result in the claimed role
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Reasonable expectation of success is measured against the result recited in claim 1, not against the real-world parking-lot performance that claim 1 does not recite. Claim 1 only requires the magnetometer to output an area signal based on a measured magnetic field, and the augmented positioning system to output a parking instruction signal based on that signal. Wood shows a quantum material magnetometer measuring a magnetic field and outputting a signal, and Von Reyher shows generating parking guidance from a sensor signal. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the claimed result.
Also, applicant argues the result would not be predictable “in the claimed role”, but the role applicant relies on, “detecting the relevant magnetic-field signal in a parking area” is broader than claim 1. Claim 1 requires only that the magnetometer measure a magnetic field in an area and output an area signal based on that field. It does not require the signal to identify or distinguish any particular parking condition, to discriminate occupancy, or to meet any performance level. To the extent applicant relies on the substitution findings of MPEP 2143(I)(B), those findings are met. The component and its functions were known, since Wood teaches a quantum material magnetometer that measures a magnetic field and outputs a signal, and the result is predictable, since that signal is output as Wood shows. The same facts also meet MPEP 2143 (I)(A) as a combination of known elements giving a predictable result. The combination is proper either way, and applicant’s concerns about real-world performance are directed to things claim 1 does not recite.
Applicant’s argument about Rouse (US 5491475) and Schwarz (US 9728085)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rouse and Schwarz were only identified during the interview for applicant’s consideration. They were not applied in any rejection. No rejection has been made over Rouse or Schwarz, and the rejection over Von Reyher in view of Wood was not changed. Applicant’s arguments about Rouse and Schwarz are directed to a rejection that was not made and do not apply to the rejection of record.
Applicant’s argument that the rejection is based on hindsight
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection is not based on hindsight. As explained above, the motivation comes from Wood’s own stated benefit of improved sensitivity and from the measurement error problem Von Reyher admits at paragraph 7, and the combination gives a predictable result. Only knowledge in the prior art of record was used, and applicant’s own disclosure was not relied on. See MPEP 2145.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Therefore, rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights