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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed June 24, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, and 3 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed June 24, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Nakada et al., US 20210179085 A1, and Stefan et al., US 20210061264 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nakada, and Stefan, respectively, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended, specifically, in response to the operation signal being received and before the drive exits the vehicle, the braking switching unit switches the braking device to the braking force generating state without requiring further input from the driver after the operation signal is received.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above claim limitation appears to establish in order to perform autonomous parking, a braking unit switches to generating a braking force before a driver exits a vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize any invention directed to autonomous parking, including Nakada, would necessarily perform the same implicitly because otherwise would create an incredible dangerous condition for the driver, specifically, not engaging a vehicle’s brakes as part of parking before the driver exits, or, in other words, allowing a driver to exit a vehicle without first engaging the vehicle’s brakes.
For at least these reasons, the above subject matter is obvious in view of Nakada.
For at least the above, the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the drive” appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada et al., US 20210179085 A1, in view of Stefan et al., US 20210061264 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nakada, and Stefan, respectively.
As to claim 1, Nakada discloses a parking assistance device comprising:
a processor configured to implement:
a traveling assistance control unit that causes a vehicle to automatically travel to a designated parking area and park the vehicle (Automated driving and parking – See at least ¶28-29, 42-43);
a reception unit that receives an operation signal for shifting to a state in which traveling control by the traveling assistance control unit can be executed from an operation unit provided in a vehicle interior of the vehicle (Touch panel display for initiating vehicle mode, i.e., “shifting to a state in which traveling control…can be executed” – See at least ¶53, 55, and Fig. 2); and
a braking switching unit that switches a braking device that maintains a stop state of the vehicle to a braking force generating state in response to the operation signal being received without requiring input from the driver (Braking pursuant to parking operation – See at least ¶65 and Fig. 5; Control executed by control system even when brake operation not accepted, i.e., “without requiring input from the driver” – See at least ¶63 and 67).
Nakada fails to explicitly disclose in response to the operation signal being received and before the drive exits the vehicle, the braking switching unit switches the braking device to the braking force generating state without requiring further input from the driver after the operation signal is received. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakada and include the feature of in response to the operation signal being received and before the drive exits the vehicle, the braking switching unit switches the braking device to the braking force generating state without requiring further input from the driver after the operation signal is received, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize any invention directed to autonomous parking, including Nakada, would necessarily perform the same implicitly because otherwise would create an incredible dangerous condition for the driver, specifically, not engaging a vehicle’s brakes as part of parking before the driver exits, or, in other words, allowing a driver to exit a vehicle without first engaging the vehicle’s brakes.
Nakada fails to explicitly disclose a sensor that determines a driver of the vehicle has exited the vehicle, wherein after the sensor determines the driver has exited the vehicle, the braking switching unit is configured to switch the braking device to a braking force non-generating state and the travel assistance control begins the vehicle to travel automatically. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakada and include the feature of a detecting unit that determines a driver of the vehicle has exited the vehicle, wherein after the detecting unit determines the driver has exited the vehicle, the braking switching unit is configured to switch the braking device to a braking force non-generating state and the travel assistance control begins the vehicle to travel automatically, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Stefan teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous parking arts to determine whether a driver has left a vehicle and then perform subsequent autonomous travel (See at least Abstract of Stefan). Additionally, it would be readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in order to accomplish the autonomous travel of both Nakada and Stefan, any braking force would be released so as not to encumber the requested vehicle movement necessary for autonomous travel.
As to claim 3, Nakada discloses:
the braking device includes a first braking device that uses an actuator for maintaining a stop state and a second braking device that does not use an actuator for maintaining a stop state (Friction brakes, i.e., braking device with an actuator, and parking lock mechanism by changing gear shift, i.e., braking device without an actuator – See at least ¶65), and
the braking switching unit switches the first braking device and the second braking device to a braking force generating state in a case where the operation signal is received, and shifts the first braking device to a braking force non-generating state after it is confirmed that the braking force of the second braking device is generated (Braking by friction brakes released after period of time after automatic parking operation – See at least ¶91).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
