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 .
1. This action is responsive to RCE received Jan. 15, 2026.
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 (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 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.
2. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0148197 (referred to hereafter as Yoon).
As to claims 1 and 6-7, Yoon teaches a method, device and medium for performing an AVP operation of a motor vehicle within a parking lot, the method comprising the following steps:
during a performance of the AVP operation based on one AVP type selected from the following group of AVP types: AVP type 1, AVP type 2 and AVP type 3, wherein AVP type 1 is a vehicle-centered AVP operation, wherein AVP type 2 is an infrastructure-centered AVP operation, and wherein AVP type 3 is a shared vehicle-infrastructure AVP operation, carrying out a test as to whether at least one predetermined switching condition is fulfilled for a planned switch of the performance of the AVP operation from the one AVP type to another AVP type (see para. 64-65 and 73-75, parking is performed autonomously, based on infrastructure instructions or partially delegated between autonomous mode and instructions from the parking structure) and if the at least one predetermined switching condition is not fulfilled and/or if an error occurs during or after the switch, transferring the motor vehicle into a safe state (para. 75 and fig. 4, if an error in communication or a mechanical error occurs, vehicle applies emergency brake and resumes autonomous mode, i.e. safe state); and
releasing, depending on a result of the test, the planned switch to continue the AVP operation (see para. 64-65 and 73-75, parking mode is switched if conditions are met).
As to claim 2, Yoon teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: upon release and after the planned switch, during the continuation of the AVP operation based on the other AVP type, using at least one function of the one AVP type as a fallback level and/or as a review level for performing the AVP operation based on the other AVP type (see para. 65-66).
As to claim 3, Yoon teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least one predetermined switching condition is an element selected from the following group of switching conditions: (i) an AVP system of the motor vehicle and/or an AVP system of an infrastructure is ready to perform at least one function of the other AVP type, which the motor vehicle and/or the infrastructure are to perform according to the other AVP type; (ii) a localization of the motor vehicle according to the one AVP type matches a localization of the motor vehicle according to the other AVP type within a predetermined tolerance range; (iii) the motor vehicle was re-identified by the infrastructure; (iv) data for continuing the AVP operation based on the other AVP type are available; (iv) reception of a heartbeat message transmitted by the infrastructure; (v) reception of a heartbeat message transmitted by the motor vehicle; (vi) the motor vehicle was correctly identified by the infrastructure (see para. 64-66).
As to claim 4, Yoon teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein each of the at least one function is an element selected from the following group of functions: (i) determining a target position, located within the parking lot, for the motor vehicle; (ii) planning a route from a start position, included in the parking lot, to the target position; (iii) detecting an object and/or an event and responding accordingly to a detected object and/or a detected event; (iv) locating the motor vehicle within the parking lot; (v) calculating a desired trajectory and/or a driving tube and/or a safety area, which must be free of collision objects, for the motor vehicle based on the planned route; (vi) controlling a lateral and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on the calculated desired trajectory and/or the calculated driving tube and/or the calculated safety area; (vii) specifying at least one traversing condition including speed and/or acceleration when the motor vehicle drives away from a start position of the parking lot; (viii) determining at least one item of context information including traffic rule(s) of the route, and/or accident black spot(s) of the route and/or traffic rule(s) of the target position, and/or accident black spot(s) of the target position, wherein the context information is determined in using a digital map of the parking lot; (ix) determining a switching position of the parking lot where the planned switch is to be performed; (x) determining a switching area of the parking lot within which the planned switch is to be performed; (xi) monitoring of the motor vehicle by the infrastructure as the motor vehicle drives within the parking lot (see para. 65-66).
As to claim 5, Yoon teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein one or more or all of the method steps are performed by an infrastructure and/or by the motor vehicle (see para. 65-66).
3. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights