DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the independent claims define an apparatus and make significant use of “wherein” clauses. Apparatus claims "[C]over what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer. See MPEP 2111.05.
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The use of “wherein” clauses raises this issue. See MPEP 2103, 2111.04.
The independent apparatus claims at issue recite language/elements that does not give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps. Additionally, no functional relationship exists between the function and structure. The computer-based elements merely serve as a support for information or data; the claimed WSU, CRM and COU merely provide or manage data.
The use of “wherein” clauses are determined to be claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. These limitations are not given significant patentable weight.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is applying prior art to all limitations. However, the application of prior art to those limitations without significant patentable weight is not a reason to ignore this interpretation. While prior art is being applied to all limitations, the true interpretation creates an additional rejection that must be addressed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation on the necessary structure to manage and calculate new and necessary data, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims fail to provide exact terms and structure to make and use the invention. The use of “wherein” clauses define significant portions of the independent claims as optional and does not set forth the best mode contemplated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0165954) in view of Ran, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,692,365) and in view of Janovec, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0372607).
For claim 7, Song teaches a communication-based connected reference marker system (C-CRM System) comprising: a network of Connected Reference Markers (CRM) installed along a roadway (see paras. 0018, 0033); a Central Operations Unit (COU) (see para. 0033); and a roadside communication system (see paras. 0034, 0021). Song does not explicitly disclose the next limitation.
A teaching from Ran discloses identifying the locations and positions of objects on the roadway and in the driving environment for the vehicle (see col. 3:4 to col. 4: 31, object is detected, a location is implicit); and detects and identifies objects on the roadway and in the driving environment for the vehicle (see col. 3:4 to col. 4: 31, object is detected). A teaching from Janovec discloses wherein a CRM of the network of CRMs provides a local location reference and/or an object reference to support (see pars. 0082, 0085) the locations of Ran.
It would have been obvious to modify Song at the effective date of filing to include the teaching of Ran based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a system providing full vehicle operations and control for connected and automated vehicle and highway systems by sending individual vehicles with detailed and time-sensitive control instructions. It is suitable for a portion of lanes, or all lanes of the highway (see col. 1:30-39).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Song with the teaching of Janovec such that the data would have specific identifiers associated with the type of data based on the motivation to improve an identification system for use with a vehicle that comprises a marker that can assist in sign detection or sign recognition or both (see para. 0001).
For the next limitation, Song further discloses wherein the COU manages and operates local location relationship tables for the network of CRMs, virtual roadway configuration information for the roadway, or local location relationship tables for key points of a central line of a driving lane (see paras. 0018, 0038-0040); and transmits the local location relationship tables, the virtual roadway configuration information, or the local location relationship tables for key points of a central line of a driving lane to CRMs and to the vehicle (see paras. 0038-0040) and wherein the C-CRM System comprises a computer and/or data storage provided by cloud computing provided by a virtual computer system over a network (see paras. 0021, 0033).
With reference to claim 8, Song further discloses a location relationship identification module to develop a set of local location for CRM (see paras. 0038-0039). Song does not explicitly disclose the map as “HD free”. The resolution of which data is displayable is a change that can be made that is well within the ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, relationship tables are well known within the data storage art as data matrix storage methods. Both of these claimed elements are obvious modifications to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the motivation to improve an apparatus having a plurality of markers embedded on a road, the plurality of markers arranged in a line and configured to define a border of at least one lane in a plurality of lanes on the road, and the plurality of markers are further configured to dynamically assign a driving designation to the at least one lane on the road (see para. 0003).
Continuing with the claim, Song further discloses a VRCM to provide virtual roadway configuration information comprising virtual driving cells, virtual driving lanes, virtual driving lane groups, and a virtual driving grid (see para. 0035). A teaching from Ran discloses a communication module for transmitting said local location relationship tables and said virtual roadway configuration information to CRMs and to the vehicle (see col. 8:22-32).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 8. Additionally, a “high definition map” is not disclosed by Song. The resolution of which data is displayable is a change that can be made that is well within the ordinary skill in the art. The “definition” of the map is an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the motivation to improve an apparatus having a plurality of markers embedded on a road, the plurality of markers arranged in a line and configured to define a border of at least one lane in a plurality of lanes on the road, and the plurality of markers are further configured to dynamically assign a driving designation to the at least one lane on the road (see para. 0003).
Pertaining to claim 10, Ran further discloses wherein a CRM stores said local location relationship tables and said virtual roadway configuration information (see col. 8:32-40, col. 2:60-3:3). Song teaches transmits said local location relationship tables and said virtual roadway configuration information to the vehicle driving by said CRM (see paras. 0035, 0038-0039).
Referring to claim 11, Song further teaches wherein said COU transmits said local location relationship tables and said virtual roadway configuration information to CRM (see paras. 0018, 0038-0039).
With regards to claim 12, Song further teaches wherein the roadside communication system is configured to provide communication and information sharing among CRMs, COU, and the vehicle (see para. 0034).
For claim 13, Song further discloses wherein the network comprises the internet, a connected automated vehicle highway (CAVH), an intelligent road infrastructure system (IRIS), and/or a cellular network (see para. 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not contain a teaching for which a reasonable combination could be made to teach the limitation “wherein the C-CRM system uses a triangular position identification method that is a two-dimensional method for a level grade road or that is a three-dimensional method for a road comprising an upgrade or a down grade.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights