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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 May 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, and 13 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 7 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-15 are pending.
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority EP20196688.4 on 09/17/2020 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/02/2025, with respect to claims 1-15 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
...
In other words, Lim describes a system for avoiding collision when driving out of the parking area, i.e. the risk for collision after leaving the parking position. Claim 1 on the other hand, clearly defines a method for determining whether the parking position of the first vehicle is hazardous in terms of risk that the parked first vehicle being hit by a second rear-coming vehicle while parked, i.e. the risk for collision before leaving the parking position. Lim does not disclose a method for determining whether the parking position of the first vehicle as such is hazardous in terms of risk of being hit by a rear-coming vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is novel over Lim.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to “Lim does not disclose a method for determining whether the parking position of the first vehicle as such is hazardous in terms of risk of being hit by a rear-coming vehicle”, previously recited Lim et al. (20200216063; hereinafter Lim, already of record) discloses:
“determine the risk of collision region A1 between the vehicle and the target vehicle 2 according to the TTC calculated” ¶ 68
“determine the risk of collision region A1 of the vehicle 1 based on the parking line PL around the vehicle 1 captured by the capturer 350 ... may be configured to determine the expected collision region C1 in which the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 are in actual collision within the risk of collision region A1 based on the driving information of the vehicle 1 and the driving information of the target vehicle 2” ¶ 74
Wherein it can be seen that previously recited portions of Lim does disclose of a method for determining a hazardous parking position of being hit by a rear-coming vehicle.
Applicant Argues:
Furthermore, since Lim merely describes a system for avoiding collision when driving out of the parking area, Lim does not involve retrieving stored sensor data that was registered by at least one forwards directed sensor unit associated with the first vehicle while travelling a road stretch leading up to the parking position and before the first vehicle entered the parking state at the parking position, as defined in new claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is novel over Lim.
Moreover, claim 1 defines that the level of a risk parameter reflecting a risk for the parked first vehicle being hit by the second, rear-coming vehicle is calculated based_ on retrieved sensor data, which was registered by at least one forwards directed sensor unit associated with the first vehicle while travelling a road stretch leading up to the parking position and before the first vehicle entered the parking state at the parking position. This feature is novel over Lim, because the sensor data used for calculating collision risk in Lim is based on sensor data registered after arriving at the parking position, specifically based on sensor data registered while driving away from the parking position. Therefore, claim 1 is novel over Lim.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments pertain to newly amended limitations not addressed in the prior Office Action of record; however, Lim disclose s:
“a sensor 200 may be disposed within the vehicle 1. The sensor 200 may be configured to detect the object located in front of the vehicle 1 and obtain at least one of position information and driving speed information of the detected object. As will be described later, the sensor 200 may be configured to detect the obstacle located in front of the vehicle 1” ¶ 41
“the controller 100 may be configured to determine the driving type of the vehicle 1 based on whether the parking line PL is present around the vehicle 1 and whether there is the obstacle present on at least one of the front side and the rear side of the vehicle 1” ¶ 63
“the controller 100 may be configured to determine the driving type of the vehicle 1 as a state where the vehicle 1 was not parked in the parking line PL” ¶ 81
“The controller 100 may be configured to determine a risk of collision region A2 between the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 based on the determined driving type of the vehicle 1 as illustrated in FIG. 7” ¶ 83
Wherein it can be seen that the risk for collision can be determined by the driving type of the vehicle based on the road stretching leading up to the parked vehicle.
Applicant Argues:
In addition, claim 1 defines that the retrieved sensor data corresponds to forwards visibility information reflecting visibility of the parking position of the first vehicle as perceived by a second rear-coming vehicle, or driver thereof. In other words, the retrieved sensor data of claim 1 reflects how well the second vehicle/driver coming from behind the can detect the parked first vehicle. Sensor data from sensor 200 in Lim merely reflects relative distance and relative speed of the second vehicle 2, but these two parameters do not reflect visibility of the parking position of the first vehicle as perceived by a second rear-coming vehicle. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are novel over Lim.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation additionally recites “calculating a level of a risk parameter reflecting a risk for the parked first vehicle being hit by the second, rear-coming, vehicle based on the retrieved sensor data; and determining that the parking position is a hazardous parking position when said level of said risk parameter exceeds a threshold value”, wherein the use of the visibility data to calculate the risk parameter is recited in the claims at a high level of generality, and that Lim discloses utilizes forward sensor data to determine risk parameter for the parked vehicle, as described above.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 5-6, and 8-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (20200216063; hereinafter Lim, already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a method for operating a vehicle hazardous parking warning system for warning a user of a first vehicle about hazardous parking of the first vehicle, the method comprising (Lim: Abstract):
detecting that the first vehicle enters a parking state at a parking position along a roadside (Lim: “the capturer 350 may be configured to detect a driving lane of the road on which the vehicle 1 is being driven or detect a parking area where the vehicle 1 is parked by capturing an image of the lane or parking line displayed on the road” ¶ 40),
determining whether the parking position of the first vehicle is hazardous in terms of risk that the parked first vehicle being hit by a second, rear-coming, vehicle by (Lim: “the rear lateral side sensor 201 may be configured to detect another vehicle approaching from the rear lateral side of the subject vehicle 1” ¶ 45, “provide the driver or passengers with an alert that indicates a level of danger to the vehicle 1 (e.g., a notification regarding a collision risk)” ¶ 47):
retrieving stored sensor data that was registered by at least one forwards directed sensor unit associated with the first vehicle while travelling a road stretch leading up to the parking position and before the first vehicle entered the parking state at the parking position (Lim: “a sensor 200 may be disposed within the vehicle 1. The sensor 200 may be configured to detect the object located in front of the vehicle 1 and obtain at least one of position information and driving speed information of the detected object. As will be described later, the sensor 200 may be configured to detect the obstacle located in front of the vehicle 1” ¶ 41), wherein the retrieved sensor data corresponds to forwards visibility information reflecting visibility of the parking position of the first vehicle as perceived by a second rear- coming vehicle, or driver thereof (Lim: “the controller 100 may be configured to determine the driving type of the vehicle 1 based on whether the parking line PL is present around the vehicle 1 and whether there is the obstacle present on at least one of the front side and the rear side of the vehicle 1” ¶ 63, “the controller 100 may be configured to determine the driving type of the vehicle 1 as a state where the vehicle 1 was not parked in the parking line PL” ¶ 81); calculating a level of a risk parameter reflecting a risk for the parked first vehicle being hit by the second, rear-coming, vehicle based on the retrieved sensor data (Lim: Fig. 7, “determine the risk of collision region A1 of the vehicle 1 based on the parking line PL around the vehicle 1 captured by the capturer 350 ... may be configured to determine the expected collision region C1 in which the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 are in actual collision within the risk of collision region A1 based on the driving information of the vehicle 1 and the driving information of the target vehicle 2” ¶ 74, “The controller 100 may be configured to determine a risk of collision region A2 between the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 based on the determined driving type of the vehicle 1 as illustrated in FIG. 7” ¶ 83); and determining that the parking position is a hazardous parking position when said level of said risk parameter exceeds a threshold value (Lim: “determine the risk of collision region A2 based on the detection information of the weighted target vehicle 2 in determining the risk of collision region A2 of the vehicle 1” ¶ 86),
activating a warning feature for warning the user of the first vehicle about hazardous parking in response to determined hazardous parking position (Lim: “the controller 100 may be configured to operate the indicator 88 to output a collision risk warning sound between the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 to inform the driver of the risk” ¶ 78”).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the retrieved forwards visibility information or retrieved sensor data corresponds to:
forwards visibility information or sensor data that was registered and stored not more than five minutes, specifically within a range of 3-60 seconds, prior to detecting that the first vehicle entered the parking state at the parking position along the roadside; or
forwards visibility information or sensor data that was registered and stored not more than 2000 metres, specifically not more than 1000 metres, prior to the parking position along the roadside (Lim: “the object based on the distance between the vehicle 1 and the object and a predetermined reference distance stored in the storage 90” ¶ 56, “The storage 90 may be configured to store information related to the relative distance and the relative speed between the vehicle 1 and the object” ¶ 59, Note: Wherein it is mere design choice regarding the specific distance chosen and it appears the invention would perform equally as well with a predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 6, Lim teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the risk parameter reflecting a risk for the parked first vehicle being hit by a second, rear-coming, vehicle, is any of, or a combination of:
risk assessment score value (Lim: “in response to determining that the vehicle 1 is being driven in the expected collision region C1, the controller 100 may be configured to increase the driving braking amount of the vehicle 1 within the expected collision region C1 beyond the predetermined value” ¶ 77);
estimated distance to the parking position of the first vehicle when coming into visual range of the parked first vehicle, as experienced by a second, rear-coming, vehicle, or driver thereof;
estimated time period from detecting the parked first vehicle until arriving at the parked first vehicle, as experienced by a second, rear-coming, vehicle, or driver thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of activating a warning feature for warning the user of the first vehicle about hazardous parking (Lim: “an indicator 88 configured to provide warning notifications related to collision of the vehicle 1 to the driver” ¶ 54) involves any of, or a combination of:
- activating a visual and/or audio warning signal (Lim: “operate the indicator 88 to output a collision risk warning sound” ¶ 78); or
- transmitting a voice warning message via a display and/or a loudspeaker (see also ¶ 47);
wherein said warning signal or warning message is outputted via a warning output device, in particular a display (Lim: “The display may also be configured to provide the driver or passengers with an alert that indicates a level of danger to the vehicle 1” ¶ 47), light signal device, vibration device and/or loudspeaker, located within the first vehicle or via a mobile electronic device associated with a user of the first vehicle (Lim: “the indicator 88 to output a collision risk warning sound between the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 to inform the driver of the risk, and may be configured to display a collision risk message on the display of the vehicle 1” ¶ 78).
Regarding claim 9, Lim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of activating a warning feature for warning the user of the first vehicle about hazardous parking additionally involves providing a recommended action to the user of the first vehicle, wherein the recommended action relates to any of, or a combination of:
- moving the first vehicle away from the current parking position (Lim: “may be configured to regulate the driving speed of the vehicle 1 under the control of the controller” ¶ 57);
- evacuating the first vehicle;
- setting out warning device for warning a driver or driving system of the second, rear- coming, vehicle about the parked first vehicle,
wherein said recommended action is outputted via a display and/or loudspeaker located within the first vehicle or via a mobile electronic device associated with a user of the first vehicle (Lim: “the indicator 88 to output a collision risk warning sound between the vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2 to inform the driver of the risk, and may be configured to display a collision risk message on the display of the vehicle 1” ¶ 78).
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of calculating the level of the risk parameter additionally takes one or more of the following aspects are taken into account:
- road width or road lane width at the parking position (Lim: “may be configured to detect a shape of a road or a parting line or the like” ¶ 40, “the controller 100 may give a predetermined weight to the parking line PL information captured by the capturer 350 ... may be configured to determine the risk of collision region A1” ¶ 69);
- portion of road width or road lane width that is blocked by the first vehicle at the parking position;
- road speed limit at the parking position and/or on the road stretch leading up to the parking position;
- foggy weather condition at the parking position and/or on the road stretch leading up to the parking position;
- precipitation condition at the parking position;
- sunlight, in particular incident angle of sunlight relative to the orientation of the road stretch leading up to the parking position;
- outdoor light condition at the parking position;
- road grip at the parking position;
- traffic intensity at the parking position; and/or
- vehicle detectability by a driver or driving system of the second, rear-coming, vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising, in response to determined hazardous parking position, when the first vehicle is operating in an autonomous driving mode, controlling the first vehicle to drive away from the parking position (Lim: “operating the accelerator in response to the control signal of the controller 100” ¶ 55, “The speed regulator 70 may be configured to regulate the driving speed of the vehicle 1 under the control of the controller 100. When the risk of collision between the vehicle 1 and another object is high” ¶ 57).
Regarding claim 12, Lim teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising monitoring vehicle speed and determining that the first vehicle is entering the parking state at a parking position along the roadside (Lim: “detect a parking area where the vehicle 1 is parked” ¶ 40) when the speed of the first vehicle is lower than a threshold value, in particular when the speed of the first vehicle is zero (Lim: “when the current vehicle 1 is stopped on the shoulder of the road or the driving road side and enters the driving lane, the controller 100 may be configured to determine the risk of collision” ¶ 85).
Regarding claim 13, Lim teaches a vehicle hazardous parking warning system (Lim: Abstract) ...
a first sensor for detecting (Lim: “a vehicle provided with a sensor” ¶ 37) ...
a warning output device (Lim: “operate the indicator 88 to output a collision risk warning sound” ¶ 78) ...
an electronic control system (Lim: “a processor, controller/control unit” ¶ 32) ...
In regards to the remainder of claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, Lim teaches the vehicle hazardous parking warning system according to claim 13, wherein the at least one forwards directed sensor unit is any of, or a combination of, an image sensor unit (Lim: “The capturer 350 may be a camera, video camera, or the like and may be configured to capture an image around the vehicle 1 while the vehicle 1 is being driven or stopped” ¶ 39), a radar sensor unit, a LIDAR sensor unit (see also ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 15, Lim teaches a vehicle or a mobile electronic device comprising the warning system according to claim 13 (Lim: ¶ 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koehler (20160146940) is in the similar field of endeavor of vehicle sensing as the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663