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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm et al. (US 2019/0147744 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0253665 A1).
As to claim 1, Grimm discloses a method of controlling collision avoidance of a vehicle, the method comprising: monitoring, by an detection portion for autonomous driving of the vehicle, information on other vehicle (para. 0010), which is approachable to the vehicle, and an object (para. 0037) in a parked or stopped state after a starting of the vehicle is turned off (para. 0003, 0034); determining, by an autonomous driving controller, whether the other vehicle moves based on the monitored information of the detection portion for the autonomous driving (para. 0010); when the autonomous driving controller concludes that the other vehicle moves, determining, by the autonomous driving controller, a collision index representing a probability of collision of the other vehicle with the vehicle (para. 0050-0054); and comparing the collision index with a reference value, and when the collision index is greater than the reference value (para. 0051-005), controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the vehicle in a direction of the collision avoidance with the other vehicle (para. 0014); wherein the collision index is determined by considering a vehicle speed of the other vehicle approaching the vehicle (para. 0024), a distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle (para. 0024). Grimm does not explicitly disclose the collision index is determined by considering a predicted area of collision of the other vehicle with the vehicle. However, Gupta teaches the collision index is determined by considering a predicted area of collision of the other vehicle with the vehicle (para. 0050). Therefore, given the teaching of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the method of Grimm, by employing the well-known or conventional features of the collision index is determined by considering a predicted area of collision of the other vehicle with the vehicle, to efficiently determine the collision index of the vehicle with the other vehicle.
As to claim 2, Grimm further discloses before the starting of the vehicle is turned off (para. 0003, 0034), checking, by the detection portion for the autonomous driving, the information on the other vehicles and the object present around the vehicle (para. 0010).
As to claim 3, Grimm further discloses before the starting of the vehicle is turned off (para. 0003, 0034-0035), determining, by the autonomous driving controller, whether accident prevention control of the vehicle during parking or stopping of the vehicle is activated (para. 0035).
As to claim 4, Grimm further discloses when the activation of the accident prevention control during the parking or the stopping is selected through an operating switch, a cluster for audio, video, navigation (AVN), or one input device among a display, a voice input device, and a smart device, the autonomous driving controller is configured to determine that the activation of the accident prevention control during the parking or the stopping is performed (para. 0035).
As to claim 5, Grimm further discloses when the detection portion for the autonomous driving monitors the information on the other vehicle, which is approachable to the vehicle, and the object, the monitoring is performed at a low speed sampling for preventing battery discharging of the vehicle (para. 0036).
As to claim 7, Grimm further discloses wherein, in the determining, by the autonomous driving controller, whether the other vehicle moves, when the autonomous driving controller concludes that the movement of the other vehicle approachable to the vehicle is detected, the detection portion for the autonomous driving monitors the movement of the other vehicle at a high speed sampling (para. 0051).
As to claim 11, Grimm further discloses wherein the comparing of the collision index with the reference value includes: comparing a highest maximum collision index among collision indexes of other vehicles with a first reference value; and comparing the highest maximum collision index among the collision indexes of the other vehicles with a second reference value (para. 0054-0055, 0057).
As to claim 12, Grimm further discloses wherein, when the maximum collision index is greater than the first reference value, power is applied in advance to control portions and actuating portions of the vehicle for turning the vehicle in the direction of collision avoidance with the other vehicle (para. 0054-0055, 0057).
As to claim 13, Grimm further discloses wherein, when the maximum collision index is greater than the second reference value, the controlling of the vehicle in the direction of collision avoidance with the other vehicle is performed by the autonomous driving controller (para. 0054-0055, 0057).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm and Gupta, as applied to claim 1 above, futher in view of Thompson et al. (US 2013/0211623 A1).
As to claim 6, Grimm further discloses when the detection portion for the autonomous driving monitors the information on the other vehicle, which is approachable to the vehicle, and the object, terminating an accident prevention control during parking or stopping of the vehicle to prevent battery discharging of the vehicle. notifying a driver of the vehicle when a state of charge (SOC) value of a battery in the vehicle is less than a reference value (para. 0013), but does not explicitly disclose notifying a driver of the vehicle when a state of charge (SOC) value of a battery in the vehicle is less than a reference value. However, Thompson teaches notifying a driver of the vehicle when a state of charge (SOC) value of a battery in the vehicle is less than a reference value (para. 0116). Therefore, given the teaching of Thompson, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the method of Grimm, by employing the well-known or conventional features of notifying a driver when SOC value of a battery is less than a reference value, to inform the termination of the accident prevention control due to low battery SOC.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm Grimm and Gupta, as applied to claim 1 above, futher in view of Thompson et al. (US 2013/0211623 A1) and Omi et al. (US 2023/0055038 A1).
As to claim 20, Grimm further discloses terminating an accident prevention control of the vehicle during parking or stopping when a state of charge (SOC) value of a battery in the vehicle is less than a reference value (para. 0013), but does not explicitly disclose notifying a driver and asking whether to keep the vehicle rotated in the direction of collision avoidance or rotate the vehicle to return to an original parking position of the vehicle. However, Thompson teaches notifying a driver (para. 0116) and Omi teaches asking the driver whether to return the vehicle to an original parking position (para. 0069). Therefore, given the teaching of Thompson and Omi, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the method of Grimm, by employing the well-known or conventional features of notifying and asking a driver, to inform the termination of the accident prevention control and permission to return vehicle to original position, to prevent causing inconvenience to objects or vehicle parked next to the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights