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 .
Response to Arguments
Upon consideration of the Applicant’s amendments and arguments, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is applied based on Otake et al (JP2012221451A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5, 7, 11 and 14 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.
Claim 4, it is indefinite as it is unclear how the alternative embodiments of predetermined control can occur together with the embodiment of predetermined control recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Independent claim 1 was amended to incorporate limitations of dependent claim 6, which is directed to an embodiment of the predetermined control being notifying a user such that the moving body does not enter a predetermined range.
Dependent claim 4 recites an alternative embodiment of the predetermined control being causing the moving body to overtake the surrounding moving body with or without lane change. It is unclear how the predetermined control can be notifying a user such that the moving body does not enter a predetermined range while also being causing the moving body to overtake the surrounding moving body with or without lane change, these alternative predetermined control embodiments appear mutually exclusive and/or contradictory.
Similarly, dependent claim 7 recites an alternative embodiment of the predetermined control being notifying a user of the moving body to overtake the surrounding moving body with or without lane change. It is unclear how the predetermined control can be notifying a user such that the moving body does not enter a predetermined range while also being notifying a user of the moving body to overtake the surrounding moving body with or without lane change, these alternative predetermined control notifications appear mutually exclusive and/or contradictory.
Claims 11 and 14 depend upon claims 4 and 7 and inherit the deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated in view of Otake et al (JP2012221451A) (hereinafter Otake).
Regarding claim 1, Otake discloses, as shown for example in FIGs. 32-35, a moving body control device (FIG. 32) of a moving body (host vehicle MM), comprising:
a processor (“the driving support control unit…configured by an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) including a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like”) configured to acquire recognition data of an external environment including a surrounding area of the moving body (surrounding information DB 90, surrounding information acquisition unit 11);
acquire, based on the recognition data of the external environment, other moving body information indicating a feature of a surrounding moving body in the surrounding area (preceding vehicle attribute recognition unit 91; preceding vehicle MR; “The preceding vehicle attribute recognition unit 91 is based on the surrounding road information transmitted from the surrounding information DB 90, the surrounding information output from the surrounding information acquisition unit 11, and the own vehicle state information output from the own vehicle state measuring unit 12. Recognize the attributes of the preceding vehicle. As an attribute of the preceding vehicle, for example, the size of the preceding vehicle is recognized”);
refer to a memory that stores parking position data in which a surrounding parking position and the feature of the surrounding moving body parked at the surrounding parking position are associated with each other (as previously cited, the driving support control unit is configured by an ECU including a ROM and a RAM; “as shown in FIG. 34 (a), it is assumed that there is a parking frame PF in front of the host vehicle MM, and the preceding vehicle MF and the preceding vehicle MR stop on the side of the parking frame PF. In addition, it is assumed that the parked vehicle MP is stopped in another parking frame…At this time, it is considered that not the preceding vehicle MF but the preceding vehicle MR parks in the parking frame PF first. When the preceding vehicle MR is parked in the parking frame PF”) and
determine, based on the other moving body information, whether there is a possibility that the surrounding moving body is to be parked at the surrounding parking position that is a parking position in the surrounding area (as previously cited, “as shown in FIG. 34 (a), it is assumed that there is a parking frame PF in front of the host vehicle MM, and the preceding vehicle MF and the preceding vehicle MR stop on the side of the parking frame PF. In addition, it is assumed that the parked vehicle MP is stopped in another parking frame…At this time, it is considered that not the preceding vehicle MF but the preceding vehicle MR parks in the parking frame PF first”; Also note indication of use of hazards in FIGs. 34 & 35, in combination with the disclosure of “The parking-related state includes a lighting state of a brake light, a lighting state of a reverse light, a blinking state of a hazard lamp, and the like”); and
perform predetermined control to prevent the moving body from inhibiting parking of the surrounding moving body toward the surrounding parking position based on a determination that there is the possibility that the surrounding moving body is to be parked at the surrounding parking position (In order to cope with the backward movement of the preceding vehicle MF, as shown in FIG. 34 (b), the host vehicle MM is stopped with a backward space SP behind the preceding vehicle MF),
wherein the predetermined control is control of notifying a user (alarm guidance output device 6, FIG. 32; “The alarm calculation unit 19A transmits the calculated alarm output information to
the alarm / alarm guidance output device 6”; “The alarm / alarm guidance output device 6 includes a speaker, a monitor, and the like, and outputs an alarm regarding driving to the driver and provides route guidance. The alarm / alarm guidance output device 6 outputs an alarm having a content corresponding to the alarm output information transmitted from the alarm calculator 19A at a timing corresponding to the alarm output information”; “As a result, when it is determined that it is likely to deviate or come into contact, the alarm output timing calculation unit 13C calculates the alarm output timing (S211) and outputs it to the alarm calculation unit 19A. Thereafter, support information is output (S212)”) of the moving body such that the moving body does not enter a predetermined range (backward space SP) based on the surrounding parking position (see FIG. 34b “When the preceding vehicle MR is parked in the parking frame PF, the preceding vehicle MF may interfere with the traveling of the preceding vehicle MR, and may therefore move backward. In order to cope with the backward movement of the preceding vehicle MF, as shown in FIG. 34 (b), the host vehicle MM is stopped with a backward space SP behind the preceding vehicle MF…The size of the reverse space SP can be set to such a size that the preceding vehicle MF moves backward.”; with SP being based on the surround parking position at least because it is the amount that MF moves backward to not block the surrounding parking position).
Regarding claim 2, Otake discloses, as shown for example in FIGs. 32-35, the moving body control device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the predetermined control is control of decelerating or stopping the moving body such that a distance between the moving body and the surrounding moving body is maintained at a predetermined value or more (previously cited “see FIG. 34b “When the preceding vehicle MR is parked in the parking frame PF, the preceding vehicle MF may interfere with the traveling of the preceding vehicle MR, and may therefore move backward. In order to cope with the backward movement of the preceding vehicle MF, as shown in FIG. 34 (b), the host vehicle MM is stopped with a backward space SP behind the preceding vehicle MF…).
Regarding claim 3, Otake discloses, as shown for example in FIGs. 32-35, the moving body control device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the predetermined control is control of decelerating or stopping the moving body such that the moving body does not enter a predetermined range based on the surrounding parking position (previously cited “see FIG. 34b “When the preceding vehicle MR is parked in the parking frame PF, the preceding vehicle MF may interfere with the traveling of the preceding vehicle MR, and may therefore move backward. In order to cope with the backward movement of the preceding vehicle MF, as shown in FIG. 34 (b), the host vehicle MM is stopped with a backward space SP behind the preceding vehicle MF…).
Regarding claim 5, Otake discloses, as shown for example in FIGs. 32-35, the moving body control device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the predetermined control is control of notifying a user of the moving body such that a distance between the moving body and the surrounding moving body is maintained at a predetermined value or more (see FIG. 34b “When the preceding vehicle MR is parked in the parking frame PF, the preceding vehicle MF may interfere with the traveling of the preceding vehicle MR, and may therefore move backward. In order to cope with the backward movement of the preceding vehicle MF, as shown in FIG. 34 (b), the host vehicle MM is stopped with a backward space SP behind the preceding vehicle MF…The size of the reverse space SP can be set to such a size that the preceding vehicle MF moves backward.”; with SP being based on the surround parking position at least because it is the amount that MF moves backward to not block the surrounding parking position).
Regarding claim 15, as previously cited with respect to the same/similar recitations as that in claim 1, Otake discloses the related control method causing a computer that controls a moving body to execute processing (also see FIG. 33).
Regarding claim 16, as previously cited with respect to the same/similar recitations as that in claim 1, Otake discloses the related non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., previously cited ROM) storing a program configured to cause a computer that controls a moving body to execute processing.
Regarding claim 17, as previously cited with respect to the same/similar recitations as that in claim 1, Otake discloses wherein the surrounding parking position and the feature of the surrounding moving body once parked at the surrounding parking position are associated with each other in the parking position data (as previously cited, the driving support control unit is configured by an ECU including a ROM and a RAM; “as shown in FIG. 34 (a), it is assumed that there is a parking frame PF in front of the host vehicle MM, and the preceding vehicle MF and the preceding vehicle MR stop on the side of the parking frame PF. In addition, it is assumed that the parked vehicle MP is stopped in another parking frame…At this time, it is considered that not the preceding vehicle MF but the preceding vehicle MR parks in the parking frame PF first. When the preceding vehicle MR is parked in the parking frame PF”).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Otake et al (JP2012221451A) (hereinafter Otake) in further view of Ohmura (US 2019/0220030 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Otake fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined control is control of causing the moving body to overtake the other moving body with or without lane change.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the predetermined control is control of causing the moving body to overtake the other moving body with or without lane change (see Ohmura figure 6 and para “0070” “Generally, when overtaking (or passing) an obstacle (e.g., a preceding vehicle, a parked vehicle, a pedestrian) on or near a road, the driver of the vehicle 1 maintains a certain clearance or space (lateral distance) between the vehicle 1 and the obstacle in the lateral direction orthogonal to the traveling direction and decelerates the vehicle 1 to a speed at which the driver feels safe. Specifically, the driver reduces the relative speed with respect to the obstacle as the clearance decreases so as to avert risks of encountering, for example, a preceding vehicle suddenly changing its heading, a pedestrian coming out of a blind spot behind an obstacle, an opening door of a parked vehicle”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Otake for Driving support device to detect a distant obstacle or the like as early as possible to start the steering or start deceleration of the vehicle at an early stage in order to avoid the obstacle, as taught by Ohmura (para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Otake fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined control is control of notifying a user of the moving body to overtake the surrounding moving body with or without lane change.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the predetermined control is control of notifying a user of the moving body to overtake the surrounding moving body with or without lane change (see Ohmura figure 6 and para “0070” “Generally, when overtaking (or passing) an obstacle (e.g., a preceding vehicle, a parked vehicle, a pedestrian) on or near a road, the driver of the vehicle 1 maintains a certain clearance or space (lateral distance) between the vehicle 1 and the obstacle in the lateral direction orthogonal to the traveling direction and decelerates the vehicle 1 to a speed at which the driver feels safe. Specifically, the driver reduces the relative speed with respect to the obstacle as the clearance decreases so as to avert risks of encountering, for example, a preceding vehicle suddenly changing its heading, a pedestrian coming out of a blind spot behind an obstacle, an opening door of a parked vehicle”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Otake for Driving support device to detect a distant obstacle or the like as early as possible to start the steering or start deceleration of the vehicle at an early stage in order to avoid the obstacle, as taught by Ohmura (para. [0070]).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view Otake et al (JP2012221451A) (hereinafter Otake) in further view of Thakur et al (US 2022/0348218 A1) (hereinafter Thakur).
Regarding claim 8, Otake fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to store, in the memory when the other moving body information indicating the feature of the surrounding moving body being parked is acquired, the parking position data in which the surrounding parking position of the surrounding moving body and the feature of the surrounding moving body are associated with each other.
However, Thakur teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to store, in the memory when the other moving body information indicating the feature of the surrounding moving body being parked is acquired, the parking position data in which the surrounding parking position of the surrounding moving body and the feature of the surrounding moving body are associated with each other (see Thakur paras “0071”, “0076” and “0078” “The server 20 stores the map data in a database”, “As shown in FIG. 14, the curb management system of the server 20 determines whether each parking spot 76 is occupied by a parked vehicle 42 or is available 80 based on the merged and normalized records received from transmitting vehicles and used to update the map data in accordance with the process illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 11” and “The server updates the map data with the curb management information corresponding to the road segment 48 illustrated in FIG. 15. The updates map data indicates whether the ground adjacent the curb 44 is occupied or vacant. The parked vehicle 42 indicates occupied curb space. Cross-hatching 80 indicates curb space that is available. The cross-hatched portion of the curb 44 indicates a no-parking zone 84.”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Otake for Driving support device to detect information relating to a presence of a parked vehicle along a curb of a road, as taught by Thakur (paras. [0076] and [0078]) in order to determine whether the curb is available or occupied so that the vehicle can locate available parking spaces quickly and reduce the time spent searching for a parking spot.
Regarding claims 9-14, as previously cited with respect to the same/similar recitations as that in claim 8, Thakur teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to store, in the memory when the other moving body information indicating the feature of the surrounding moving body being parked is acquired, the parking position data in which the surrounding parking position of the surrounding moving body and the feature of the surrounding moving body are associated with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights