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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined in this application and claims 9-20 has been withdrawn.
This communication is a final action on merits.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 March 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action of 05 August 2022 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Initially, the Examiner notes that applicant did not present any arguments against the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) in the response of 29 December 2023. However, the Examiner has considered the amendments in an effort to expedite prosecution of the application. As such the claim interpretation under USC 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “one or more processing units… to perform operations” in claim 1 and “reverse planner” in claim 4. corresponding structure for the compute platform is found on paragraph 0075 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US 20230192086 A1) in view of Ito et al (US 20230092889 A1) in view of Ishimoto (US 20230012530 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gao discloses a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, when executed by one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to perform operations comprising: providing instructions to shift a gear of a vehicle from a drive gear to a reverse gear (see at least [0158], [0155-0156], and [0205]); wherein the instructions to shift the gear of the vehicle from drive to reverse triggers a workflow comprising checking, by the reverse planner, for conditions that stop execution of the reverse maneuver (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]), receiving, from the vehicle, an end-pose and a reversing path for the vehicle (see at least [0128], “The travel route trajectory may include the direction, the angle, the distance, etc. of the heading of the vehicle”); calculating a reverse maneuver for the vehicle to move in the reverse gear based on the end-pose and the reversing path (see at least [0101], [0113-0114], [0128], and [0154-0157]); transmitting, to the vehicle, signals to move the vehicle in the reverse gear (see at least [0158], [0155-0156], and [0205]); and stopping the vehicle in response to reaching the end-pose (see at least [0031], [0057], and [0161-0162]).
Gao do not specifically disclose wherein the conditions including at least a first condition of a predetermined time having elapsed without additional instructions since a last received instruction by the reverse planner.
Ito teaches wherein the conditions including at least a first condition of a predetermined time having elapsed without additional instructions since a last received instruction by the reverse planner (see at least [0032], [0110], and [claim 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ito wherein the conditions including at least a first condition of a predetermined time having elapsed without additional instructions since a last received instruction by the reverse planner. This would be done to further enhance convenience for vehicle users (see Ito para 0005).
Furthermore, Gao as modified by Ito do not specifically wherein the signals being transmitted at a signal rate above a predetermined rate threshold.
Ishimoto teaches wherein the signals being transmitted at a signal rate above a predetermined rate threshold (see at least [0033], [0080], [0083], and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao as modified by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ishimoto wherein the signals being transmitted at a signal rate above a predetermined rate threshold. This would be done to improve reverse operation when the vehicle is in reverse movement (parking maneuver) so that the vehicle is in the desired orientation in parking (see Ishimoto para 0068).
With respect to claim 2, Gao discloses calculating a forward path of the vehicle moving in drive gear based on a pose of the vehicle during the reverse maneuver (see at least [0158], “When the vehicle in FIG. 13 and FIG. 14 switches to the second reversing trajectory, it is possible to first control the vehicle gear to switch to the forward gear, adjust and correct the vehicle body angle, enter the second reversing trajectory”); and providing instructions to shift the gear of the vehicle from reverse to drive (see at least [0158], “When the vehicle in FIG. 13 and FIG. 14 switches to the second reversing trajectory, it is possible to first control the vehicle gear to switch to the forward gear, adjust and correct the vehicle body angle, enter the second reversing trajectory”).
With respect to claim 3, Gao as modified by Ito do not specifically disclose wherein: determining that a button on a user-interface is held in a selected state; continuing transmitting signals to the vehicle in response to the button being held in the selected state; determining that the button on the user-interface is released from the selected state; and stopping transmitting signals to the vehicle in response to the button being released from the selected state such that the vehicle comes to a halt without shifting gear.
Ishimoto teaches wherein: determining that a button on a user-interface is held in a selected state (see at least [0032], [0057], [0059], [0080], [0083-0084], [0096], and [0109]); continuing transmitting signals to the vehicle in response to the button being held in the selected state (see at least [0032], [0057], [0059], [0080], [0083-0084], [0096], and [0109]); determining that the button on the user-interface is released from the selected state (see at least [0032], [0057], [0059], [0080], [0083-0084], [0096], and [0109]); and stopping transmitting signals to the vehicle in response to the button being released from the selected state such that the vehicle comes to a halt without shifting gear (see at least [0032], [0057], [0059], [0080], [0083-0084], [0096], and [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao as modified by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ishimoto wherein: determining that a button on a user-interface is held in a selected state; continuing transmitting signals to the vehicle in response to the button being held in the selected state; determining that the button on the user-interface is released from the selected state; and stopping transmitting signals to the vehicle in response to the button being released from the selected state such that the vehicle comes to a halt without shifting gear. This would be done to improve reverse operation when the vehicle is in reverse movement (parking maneuver) so that the vehicle is in the desired orientation in parking (see Ishimoto para 0068).
With respect to claim 4, Gao discloses wherein the workflow further comprises: requesting, by a remote assistance platform, the vehicle to prepare for the reverse maneuver (see at least [0093]); listening, by a reverse planner, for instructions to execute the reverse maneuver (see at least [0092-0094]); transitioning the reverse planner to a pre-reverse state (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]); generating, by the remote assistance platform, the instructions to execute the reverse maneuver (see at least [0036-0042], [0096-0097], and [0175-0181]); transitioning the reverse planner to a reverse state (see at least [0036-0042], [0096-0097], and [0175-0181]); monitoring, by the reverse planner, conditions to execute the reverse maneuver (see at least [0098-0102], [0124-0128], and [0147-0156]); and executing, by the reverse planner, the instructions to execute the reverse maneuver (see at least [0036-0042], [0096-0097], and [0175-0181]).
With respect to claim 5, Gao discloses wherein the conditions that stop execution of the reverse maneuver include: a second condition of receiving instructions alerting to the state comprising at least one of manual state, temporary fault, safe stop, and a hard stop (see at least [0161-0162]); a third condition of steering wheel angle is below a predetermined angle threshold; a fourth condition of vehicle speed is below a predetermined speed threshold (see at least [0097], [0116], and [0158]).
With respect to claim 6, Gao discloses wherein the conditions to execute the reverse maneuver comprise: the vehicle has shifted the gear to reverse (see at least [0158] and [0205]); instructions to execute the reverse maneuver have been received by the reverse planner (see at least [0092-0094]).
Gao as modified by Ito do not specifically disclose wherein the conditions to execute the reverse maneuver comprise: a predetermined first time has elapsed without additional instructions since the instructions to reverse were received by the reverse planner; and a predetermined second time has not elapsed without additional instructions since the instructions to reverse were received by the reverse planner, the second time being longer than the first time.
Ishimoto teaches wherein the conditions to execute the reverse maneuver comprise: a predetermined first time has elapsed without additional instructions since the instructions to reverse were received by the reverse planner (see at least [0032], [0083], and [0096]); and a predetermined second time has not elapsed without additional instructions since the instructions to reverse were received by the reverse planner, the second time being longer than the first time (see at least [0032], [0083], and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao as modified by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ishimoto wherein the conditions to execute the reverse maneuver comprise: a predetermined first time has elapsed without additional instructions since the instructions to reverse were received by the reverse planner; and a predetermined second time has not elapsed without additional instructions since the instructions to reverse were received by the reverse planner, the second time being longer than the first time. This would be done to improve reverse operation when the vehicle is in reverse movement (parking maneuver) so that the vehicle is in the desired orientation in parking (see Ishimoto para 0068).
With respect to claim 7, Gao discloses wherein executing the instructions to execute the reverse maneuver comprises: checking for a collision against prediction intents during movement by the vehicle in reverse gear; remaining in the reverse state unless at least one of the following conditions is met:(i) the vehicle has traveled a predetermined target distance,(ii) the reverse planner detects a collision in the reversing path, or (iii) more than a predetermined time has elapsed since instructions shift the gear to reverse were provided (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]); and pausing the reverse maneuver when the reverse planner detects a collision, the pausing comprising halting the vehicle without shifting gear (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the workflow further comprises: transitioning the reverse planner to a stop reverse state in response to determining that the conditions to execute the reverse maneuver are not met (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]), monitoring, by the reverse planner, conditions to transition out of the stop reverse state (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]), and transitioning the reverse planner to a pre-drive state in response to determining that the conditions to transition out of the stop reverse state are met (see at least [0098-0102], [0124-0128], and [0147-0156]).
Alternative rejection(s) for amended independent claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US 20230192086 A1) in view of Takahashi (JP6843209B1) in view of Ishimoto (US 20230012530 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of JP6843209B1 for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Gao discloses a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, when executed by one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to perform operations comprising: providing instructions to shift a gear of a vehicle from a drive gear to a reverse gear (see at least [0158], [0155-0156], and [0205]); wherein the instructions to shift the gear of the vehicle from drive to reverse triggers a workflow comprising checking, by the reverse planner, for conditions that stop execution of the reverse maneuver (see at least [0161-0162] and [0166-0168]), receiving, from the vehicle, an end-pose and a reversing path for the vehicle (see at least [0128], “The travel route trajectory may include the direction, the angle, the distance, etc. of the heading of the vehicle”); calculating a reverse maneuver for the vehicle to move in the reverse gear based on the end-pose and the reversing path (see at least [0101], [0113-0114], [0128], and [0154-0157]); transmitting, to the vehicle, signals to move the vehicle in the reverse gear (see at least [0158], [0155-0156], and [0205]); and stopping the vehicle in response to reaching the end-pose (see at least [0031], [0057], and [0161-0162]).
Gao do not specifically disclose wherein the conditions including at least a first condition of a predetermined time having elapsed without additional instructions since a last received instruction by the reverse planner.
Takahashi teaches wherein the conditions including at least a first condition of a predetermined time having elapsed without additional instructions since a last received instruction by the reverse planner (see at least [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi wherein the conditions including at least a first condition of a predetermined time having elapsed without additional instructions since a last received instruction by the reverse planner. This would be done to provide a wireless remote control device that can stop a vehicle during remote parking even if the operating switch fails (see Takahashi para 0005).
Furthermore, Gao as modified by Takahashi do not specifically wherein the signals being transmitted at a signal rate above a predetermined rate threshold.
Ishimoto teaches wherein the signals being transmitted at a signal rate above a predetermined rate threshold (see at least [0033], [0080], [0083], and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao as modified by Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ishimoto wherein the signals being transmitted at a signal rate above a predetermined rate threshold. This would be done to improve reverse operation when the vehicle is in reverse movement (parking maneuver) so that the vehicle is in the desired orientation in parking (see Ishimoto para 0068).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights