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 action is in response to the applicant’s filing on February 2, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1, and 3 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 31, 2025 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, switching a braking device that maintains a stop state of a vehicle to a braking force generating state in response to an operation signal being received without requiring input from a driver. Applicant argues “in response to” requires an immediate relationship without any intervening steps. Additionally, Applicant argues the cited art fails to disclose discrete units as claimed but rather relies on a notification to a driver to release a manual brake and put the transmission into Park, and that the cited art’s driver braking is not part and parcel of a system controlled by a driver that switches braking to a stopped state. Applicant further argues Nakada’s control scheme relies on a brake operation performed by a driver at S504, which differs from the claimed hardware/software unit, implemented by a processor, receiving an acceptance of a parking control and then using a processor to responsively perform braking switching. Applicant argues Stefan fails to remedy these deficiencies because Stefan similarly requires driver interaction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakada explicitly provides its control system, which explicitly includes ECUs, i.e., “processors,” (See at least Fig. 1 of Nakada), implements the control scheme that performs braking control throughout its description of the steps of its control (“Control system determines…control system performs…etc.” – See at least ¶53-69) and notably Nakada explicitly describes its stationary control mode as based on driver brake operation but executed by the control system (See at least ¶67 of Nakada), wherein stationary control comprises braking (See at least ¶65 of Nakada). Additionally, stationary control may be performed without driver brake operation as Nakada’s stationary control is responsive to whether a driver input is accepted or not accepted (See at least ¶63). The branch of Nakada’s control scheme where the driver input is not accepted is analogous to the claimed “without requiring input from a driver” because the control system of Nakada is implementing brake control not reliant on a driver input by not accepting the input.
For at least these reasons, the above subject matter is not distinguishable over Nakada.
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 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. 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
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
Prosecution Insights