DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 as part of the Request for Continued Examination filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s claims retain significantly broad claim terms and limitations underpinning the overall claims. While Applicant has provided some limitations which might appear significantly narrow in isolation and if interpreted as incorporating various limitations from Applicant’s specification, the claims are “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP 2111). “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time” (MPEP 2111.01). 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). In the instant case wherein simple information is presented and manipulated by a user, the plain meaning of the claim terms, absent further description or definition, is typically the plain English dictionary definition.
Applicant’s arguments, however, in the latest remarks and as demonstrated in past remarks, appear to consistently rely on reading further limitation into the claims from the specification than the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof.
For example, Applicant states “the references do not teach an interactive, user-authored path branching from an existing displayed path where the user-authored path ends at a different point from the existing displayed path”. If this statement means anything more than “a path based on a user input branching from a path wherein the two paths have a different ending point”, then this is not in alignment with the BRI of the claim.
Furthermore, it is highly unclear how the references do not teach this limitation, particularly in the combination presented, without such incorporating limitations not claimed into the claims from the specification.
As a non-limiting list of examples:
The nature of the “user interface” is not claimed with any particularity. At most, dependent claims recite the location of the user interface, but still do not describe or define what the user interface actually is in any detail.
Related to the above, the nature of “receiving an other guideline from a user via the user interface” is not claimed with any particularity.
The claims do not presently define the nature of “displaying”, nor any particular ordered operation thereof, including with respect to “an updated guideline”. A particular item might be displayed through sequential display of parts rather than simultaneous display of the whole. For example, one does not typically display a video through displaying all images simultaneously, but through sequential display of individual frames or images. However, it is still considered as displaying a video including or comprising two particular frames even if not sequentially displayed. Similarly, when viewing a series of navigation instructions on a GPS navigation device, it is typical to display only a portion thereof at a given time, even if the whole set of instructions are eventually displayed. Thus, Applicant’s limitation of “displaying an updated guideline” even if “the updated guideline include[es] the guideline and the other guideline” does not require simultaneous display. In the interest of compact prosecution, the rejections below rely on Shutko as Shutko in combination with Salter discloses this and various other limitations whose interpretation appear in dispute based on Applicant’s belief that the prior art is overcome at a higher level of particularity than Salter alone.
Related to the above, the claims do not presently claim any particular order to the steps or functions claimed.
The claims do not presently clearly define the nature of “ending at a first” or “second” “point” for a “guideline”. In geometric terms, for example, lines follow various definitions and types. Even as explicitly provided in [0034] of Applicant’s specification, “the guideline(s) may have two end points - an originating point and a destination point. The originating point of the guideline is located at the vehicle 102. The originating point of the guideline may originate from the front or the rear of the vehicle 102 depending on the direction input. The destination point is the other end of the guideline”. In other words, without further description or definition, an “ending” “point” appears particularly arbitrary. Even if two lines share an endpoint having a same 2D or 3D location, the paths thereto may be different and a “true” endpoint considered with respect to where a portion of the vehicle may lie on the path, thus rendering the endpoint as far as actually guiding the vehicle different.
Related to the above, the nature of the limitation “differs from the first point” is not described or defined with any particularity. In other words, how it differs is not provided for. The verb “differ” merely means “to be unlike or distinct in nature, form, or characteristics” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 3/13/2026). There is no requirement that the points differ in location in any manner. They may simply differ through being part of two different guidelines, or in other words differ by the characteristic of being part of two different lines.
Furthermore, Applicant only appears to provide arguments against the references individually. There is no discussion of the combination of the references which amount to more than their individual teachings. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Consequently, the combination of references readily discloses the limitations in a variety of combinations of teachings.
As a non-exhaustive list which helps to illustrate what the Examiner considers to be the very broad nature of the present claim terms and limitations:
Salter may be considered as teaching the limitations in combination with Ohshima alone. Salter discloses the “redo button or new button”. Even as disclosed by Applicant’s specification in [0034], the origin point itself may be considered as point of the path.
A new path wherein the vehicle has not moved shares an origin and thus branches from the first. Both are displayed if only sequentially.
The paths are different and thus the origin “end point” differs by association
The paths available are to be generated are not limited to only those sharing the same destination and thus will include those having different destinations.
The path may update as the vehicle moves and thus shares an origin. Two paths are displayed, and may be considered as simultaneous to some degree
The paths are different by nature of the origin changing in the updates
Salter in combination with Ohshima and Shutko teaches the limitations with less ambiguity in interpretation.
Relying on the above from Salter, Shutko may be relied upon primarily just for simultaneous display of paths.
Furthermore, there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to find any redone or new paths of Salter to be limited to sharing the same location, presuming that limitation existed in the claims
Relying more on the disclosure of Shutko, there are two paths clearly illustrated in the examples embodied by Figures 9 and 10 which are simultaneously displayed.
Presuming a requirement for different locations of the ending points, Figures 9 and 10 of Shutko merely describe and illustrate a non-limiting example of the feature described in the specification under a particular obstacle of a particular shape in a particular location with respect to a particular original path. It is clear from the disclosure of the specification of Shutko that any portion which is obstructed may be modified, and the figures embodying the example are merely demonstrative of one possible condition of when an obstacle is present in the middle of the path. The disclosure does not indicate that only the middle of the path may be obstructed, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art of driving or of autonomous vehicles recognize the disclosure as being limited to only the circumstances illustrated in the figures. It is readily understood to one having ordinary skill in the art that an obstacle may exist at the destination or end point of a given path. Furthermore, the claims do not presently disclose the particular nature of the other guideline, how it is generated, etc. such that the disclosure of Shutko is insufficient. As necessary, see at least [0052] and [0053] wherein the “obstructed portion” is not limited to any particular circumstances. Relatedly, Applicant’s disclosure does not illustrate every possibility within their Figures, and their Figures are not considered as limiting examples.
In light of the above, please see the maintained rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19, the claims recite the limitation “the user input along the length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 already recite limitations of, or similar to:
“receiving an other guideline from a user via the user interface, the other guideline branching from a point along the length of the guideline”. The claims do not recite that the it is a user input, and even if considered as inherent to the phrasing, still do not recite that the user input is “along the length”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations of Claims 5, 12, and 19 have been interpreted as instead reading:
“receiving the other guideline from the user via the user interface”
In the case of Claims 7, 14 the claim has instead been interpreted as reading (or similar):
“wherein the method further comprises:
generating the other guideline,
the other guideline including an originating point and the originating point is along the length of the guideline”.
Examiner furthermore notes that in light of the independent Claims, Claims 7 and 14 do not appear to alter the scope of the claims other than explicitly reciting the generation of the other guideline as the other guideline is already recited as branching from a point along the length of the guideline in the independent claims, wherein said generation might be considered as inherent or directly performed by “displaying”.
Examiner finally notes that all of the above relates to clearly and explicitly providing claim limitations as positively recited steps in process and method claims (typically beginning clauses with “-ing” ending verbs) and as functional or structural claims in apparatus/system/machine claims such that the claim scope is clear.
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 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 20220410895 A1) in view of Ohshima et al. (US 20100070139 A1) and Shutko et al. (US 20140358429 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Salter teaches:
A method comprising:
displaying on a user interface a guideline identifying a potential trajectory for a vehicle (See at least path overlay 60), the guideline having a length, ending at a first point, and being based on a steering angle input … and a direction input (Examiner notes that as presently claimed, the term “direction input” is not claimed with any particularity. The nature of “based” is also not claimed with any particularity. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the steering angle input and direction input may be any kind of input from any source at any time regarding steering angle of any kind and direction of any kind respectively. Therefore, a trajectory of a vehicle should inherently teach this limitation. For the purpose of compact prosecution, however, Examiner notes that Salter teaches the limitation explicitly. See at least [0040] “The path may be defined according to a sequence of steering actions and associated vehicle speed (via throttle and braking actions) that displace the vehicles to the endpoint without impacting any obstacles or violating any buffer zones. In some embodiments, a machine learning module may be used to examine images and/or sensor data to determine a proposed endpoint, and/or may be used to plan the sequence of steering actions”, [0008] “However, when a destination or waypoint is reached, it may be desired to park the coupled vehicles in a particular location by forward or reverse travel at slow speed (e.g., pulling into a parking space for uncoupling the vehicles)”, and Claim 8);
receiving an other guideline from a user via the user interface, the other guideline branching from a point along the length of the guideline and ending at a second point that differs from the first point;
updating a shape of the guideline to generate an updated guideline (See at least [0041] “A redo button or new button 63 may be provided where the user may tap in the event that they desired to find a different path”. Examiner notes that whether it is a new or other path is a matter of subjectivity without further qualifiers as evidenced by Salter describing it as a “redo button or new button” (emphasis added) with the same reference character and description of meaning. Examiner also notes that unless the vehicle is also moved, which is explicitly described separately in [0042], this redone/updated/new path overlay 60 will inherently have at minimum a same origin(s) and thus “branch from a same point” as the original guideline under the strictest geometric interpretation. Examiner retains this note in the interest of compact prosecution as preceding claim construction and arguments have relied on a “along” or “same point” limitation.
Alternatively, and furthermore, see also at least Figure 8 and Figure 9, wherein while the user activates automated vehicle movement along the path while holding activation icon 66 the path overlay 60 is illustrated as changing in shape. See at least [0043] for related description. Holding activation icon 66 is a user input which is associated with the guideline and causes it to be altered. Applicant does not claim with any particularity essentially any of the limitations found within these two broader limitations. For example, Applicant does not claim or otherwise describe the nature of “receiving” or “an other guideline” beyond the “branching” nature discussed above. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, holding the activation icon 66 reads on these limitations as the display is receiving an other shape of the guideline which updates the existing shape due to the input of a user provided via the user interface); and
…
and
transmitting a control signal to a vehicle control system that causes the vehicle to travel along the updated guideline (See at least [0045] “While receiving the manual activation signal, the vehicle controllers or controller network generate vehicle actuator commands for both vehicles in order to automatically navigate the vehicles along the calculated/selected path”).
Salter does not teach, but in combination with Ohshima teaches:
[a steering angle input] from a user using a steering wheel (See at least expected guide line EL, initial positioning guide line PLA, and steering start positioning guide line PLB which might each be considered guidelines dependent on the steering angle of a user operated steering wheel. However, steering start positioning guide line PLB is the most appropriate to be considered in combination with Salter at this time. See specifically at least [0104] “The vehicle state sensor 13 includes … a steering angle sensor 32 … The steering angle sensor 32 detects a steering angle (for example, the direction and degree of a steering angle input by a driver) or an actual steering angle (wheel turning angle) according to the steering angle” and [0147] “The parking guide line PL is a guide line which assists driving at the time of the parking operation of the vehicle, and is superimposed on the image of the ground view GV. The parking guide line PL includes an initial positioning guide line PLA concerning the initial position of the vehicle when the parking operation starts, and a steering start positioning guide line PLB concerning the start position of a steering wheel operation from one direction to the other”. Examiner emphasizes the term “start” in steering start positioning guide line PLB)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least an initial guideline based on the instant steering direction be presented to the user as taught by Ohshima in the system of Salter with a reasonable expectation of success. Knowing how the vehicle should move in the position and steering conditions is useful information in general, or more specifically could serve to inform a user of how close they are to reaching an intended position under the user provided steering, or furthermore how necessary automated path creation is.
Examiner furthermore notes that it is at a minimum heavily implied that the initial guideline in Shutko is based on a steering angle input from a user using a steering wheel, and is clearly disclosed as guidelines being influenced during execution as such. See at least [0039] and [0054]. As Ohshima is more explicit, particularly in combination with Salter, Ohshima is retained in this rejection. Shutko additionally discloses multiple guidelines wherein one may be altered by a user or automatically to avoid an obstacle occurring along a length of the initial guideline, wherein the location of the obstacle is not limited and may thus include a destination point. See at least [0052] through [0053].
Salter or Salter in combination with Ohshima does not teach (or at least with less clarity or under narrow interpretations), but Shutko explicitly teaches:
…
displaying an updated guideline, the updated guideline including the guideline and the other guideline;
…
(See at least [0053] “According to one implementation shown in FIG. 9, the operator may manipulate the obstructed portion 164 of the intended backing path 152 by dragging the obstructed portion 164 away from the obstacle 160. It is contemplated that the operator may drag any area of the obstructed portion 164 in any direction. While this occurs, the controller 82 may automatically adjust the curvature of the modified intended backing path 166 as needed to ensure allowable hitch angles .gamma. and/or avoid any other potential obstacles. If no unacceptable backing conditions arise from the modified intended backing path 166, soft key 168 may become available to allow the operator to accept the modified intended backing path 166. Otherwise, the operator may touch soft key 170 to exit back to the path input screen 145. Additionally or alternatively, the controller 82 may automatically generate one or more possible backing paths A, B, as shown in FIG. 10, and the operator may be given the option of selecting one of the suggested backing paths A, B via a corresponding soft key 172, 174” and associated Figures 9 and 10 which make simultaneous display clear. Examiner notes that this paragraph and these figures disclose at least two different teachings which both read on the claim limitation as presently claimed. For example, with respect to Figure 10, the nature of receiving the other guideline is not claimed and therefore is not exclusive of receiving a selected, but automatically generated, other guideline from the user interface. With respect to Figure 9, the user is directly selecting in a manner at least similar to Applicant’s disclosure (See Figures 4D and 4E of Applicant’s drawings))
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously display paths as disclosed by Shutko in the system of Salter or Salter in combination with Ohshima with a reasonable expectation of success. It would alternatively furthermore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow a user to modify an initial guideline such that a branching other guideline, particularly with respect to an obstacle which may occur anywhere along the path including the destination point of the initial path. As evidenced by Shutko, an initial path may be at least partially obstructed. It is helpful to a user to be able to see the original or starting condition/guideline/etc. being modified, and Shutko clearly illustrates how a displaying the branching paths allows a user to make a personal judgement as to the improvement between paths, and in the case of automatically generated paths, select between multiple displayed options, or in the case of user generated paths, decide if further modification is appropriate or desirable.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Salter, Ohshima, and Shutko teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Salter further teaches:
wherein a destination point of the guideline is based on a range of a sensor located on the vehicle (Examiner notes that the nature of “based on” is not claimed with any particularity. See at least [0038] “A range of the active sensors and/or an estimated distance scale of the displayed image may be provided on the display (not shown) … Some regions within the coverage area of the live overhead view may be hidden from view of the cameras by other objects such as vehicles, resulting in missing data. To differentiate from open areas, a missing data overlay 51 may be displayed over live streaming image 45 corresponding to the hidden regions”, and [0040] “With the overhead streaming image presented to the user according to the user interface displayed on touchscreen 46, and with vehicles 30/31 stopped at a starting position for the parking maneuver (e.g., the user may be standing outside the vehicles), the user is prompted by the user interface to input a desired endpoint for the parking maneuver”, [0009] “Functional roles of the leading and trailing vehicle in conducting automated maneuvers may be tailored to the sensor and actuator capabilities of vehicles”, and Figures 5, 6, 7, and 9).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Salter, Ohshima, and Shutko teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Salter further teaches:
wherein the direction input is one of:
forward direction (See at least [0008] “However, when a destination or waypoint is reached, it may be desired to park the coupled vehicles in a particular location by forward or reverse travel at slow speed (e.g., pulling into a parking space for uncoupling the vehicles)” and Claim 8); or
reverse direction (See again at least [0008] and Claim 8 as well as Figures 5, 6, 7, and 9).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Salter, Ohshima, and Shutko teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Salter further teaches:
wherein the user interface is located in at least one of:
the vehicle (See at least wireless mobile device 32. Examiner notes that a mobile device may be freely moved and may be in the cabin of a vehicle with the user); or
a mobile device (See at least wireless mobile device 32).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Salter, Ohshima, and Shutko teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Salter further teaches:
wherein the user input along the length alters at least one of:
a curvature of the length of the guideline (See at least the redo or new button 63 and [0046] “In an alternate embodiment, a user may trace a desired parking path on the touchscreen and then the controllers can attempt to calculate matching steering controls to follow the traced path”); or
a destination point of the guideline (See [0041] “A redo button or new button 63 may be provided where the user may tap in the event that they desired to find a different path”. Examiner notes that unless the trace methodology of [0046] is used, a new endpoint is required for a new path to be made through the redo/new button 63 as the conditions for automatic calculation by endpoint are the same).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Salter, Ohshima, and Shutko teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Salter further teaches:
further comprises: transmitting a second control signal to the vehicle control system that causes the vehicle to decelerate in response to detecting an obstacle along the updated guideline (See at least [0043] “Movement may also be stopped if either vehicle detects it may impact something (e.g., if a person or car has moved into the calculated path)”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Salter, Ohshima, and Shutko teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Salter further teaches:
wherein the user input along the length generates an other guideline, the other guideline includes an originating point and the originating point is along the length of the guideline (Examiner first notes that the limitation of Claim 1 regarding “updating a shape of the guideline based on user input along a length of the guideline on the user interface to generate an updated guideline” might be satisfied at the same time as this claim limitation under an interpretation that a form of updating is to renew, replace, etc. Under such an interpretation, see again the cited portions with respect to the limitation of Claim 1. Examiner second and alternatively notes that Salter teaches that new paths might be created indefinitely. Salter might also stop after only partial execution of one attempt, and start with another. The claim limitation as presently constructed has no timing requirements and a variety of attempts taking different forms can occur. Depending on subjective interpretation, these paths might be updating a guideline or generating an other guideline. Finally, Examiner notes that new paths created before execution or after partial execution of a single path will inherently be “along a length of the guideline” under various interpretations and that the nature of how one guideline is “other” to another is not claimed).
Regarding Claims 8 – 20, the claims recite effectively identical subject matter as Claims 1 – 7 for the purposes of evaluating the claims under 35 USC § 103, and are rejected under the same logic as present above with respect to Claims 1 – 7. Individual rejections are therefore not provided below. Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/29/2025 and 1/20/2026 support this position, only arguing Claim 1 with respect to the prior art rather than all of the independent claims. The differences between the Claims 8 – 20 and Claims 1 – 7 are of generic computer structures, which structures are taught by Salter. See at least [0010], [0032], and [0036] for teachings directed to the generic computer structures not claimed in Claims 1 – 7 of processors, memory, and machine-readable instructions.
Conclusion
Kirstein et al. (US 20180244287 A1) which teaches highly detailed manual manipulation by a user of parking trajectory of vehicles.
Berkemeier et al. (US 20200062257 A1) which teaches path adjustment of a user selected trajectory by manual adjustment by a user.
Woo et al. (US 20210213939 A1) which teaches user selection of a variety of paths generated both in forward and reverse and which share origins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657