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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/3/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 10 and 14-17 are amended. Claims 10-12 and 13-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, however, Applicant's amendments are not fully responsive to the issues raised in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) made in the previous action. These rejections regarding non-responsive amendments are accordingly maintained as discussed in further detail below.
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 101 have been considered, however, Applicant's amendments are not fully responsive to the issues raised in the rejection under 35 USC 101 made in the previous action. These rejections regarding non-responsive amendments are accordingly maintained as discussed in further detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach, "the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and generating control signals for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant does not provide any arguments or guidance as to why the cited prior art does not teach these features. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion is moot.
Secondly, the combination of Nakabayashi and Renganathan teaches these limitations (Nakabayashi: see e.g. at least ¶ 16, Fig. 1, and related text, performing parking assistance or autonomous valet parking; Renganathan: see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, 103, 109, Fig. 1a-3, and related text, performing an automatic parking function depending on a determination of whether a bounding box representing the vehicle including any overhanging attachments overlaps a threshold value box).
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 10-11 and 13-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites: "A method for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot, the method being performed in an environment that includes at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor for the motor vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
receiving measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor;
determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and
generating control signals for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor; and
outputting the generated control signals."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Hybrid Claim: The language of the claim is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim is intended to be directed towards an apparatus or method claim, and accordingly, whether the structural claim language and/or functional claim language is intended to be limiting. For example, the claim begins with the language: “A method for …,” however, the claim proceeds to recite various structural claim elements (e.g. at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor for the motor vehicle).
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“a driving corridor for the motor vehicle”
“signals for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance … corridor”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A method for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot, the method being performed in an environment [wherein the environment is intended to include [intended to have a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle]]], the method comprising the following steps:
receiving measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor;
determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor]; and
outputting the generated control signals."
Claims 11 and 13-14 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 14 recites: "The method according to claim 10, wherein the virtual wall is divided into a plurality of wall portions that extend along the driving corridor, wherein the determination, based on the measuring data, of whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, includes selecting at least one of the wall portions based on a movement of the motor vehicle along the driving corridor, wherein it is determined, only for the at least one selected wall portion, whether an object has crossed the at least one selected wall portion, so that it is not determined, for the non-selected wall portions, whether an object has crossed the non-selected wall portions."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method according to claim 10, wherein the virtual wall is divided into a plurality of wall portions that extend along the driving corridor, wherein the determination, based on the measuring data, of whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, includes selecting at least one of the wall portions based on a movement of the motor vehicle along the driving corridor, wherein it is determined, only for the at least one selected wall portion, whether an object has crossed the at least one selected wall portion, so that it is not determined, for
Claim 15 recites: "A device configured for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot using at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor of the at least one surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor for the motor vehicle, the device configured to:
receive measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor;
determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and
generate control signals for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor; and
output the generated control signals."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above:
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A device configured for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot using at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor of the at least one surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle], the device configured to:
receive measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor;
determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and
generate control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor]; and
output the generated control signals."
Claim 16 recites: "A system for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot, comprising:
at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot and having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor for the motor vehicle; and
a device configured to:
receive measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor,
determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor, and
generate control signals for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor; and
output the generated control signals."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above. Moreover this language is further rejected for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a device configured to: receive … determine … generate … output … signals.”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A system for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot, comprising:
at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot and having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle]; and
a device [intended to:
receive measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor,
determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor, and
generate control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor]; and
output the generated control signals].”
Claim 17 recites: "A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot using at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor of the at least one surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor for the motor vehicle, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
receiving measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor;
determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and
generating control signals for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor; and
outputting the generated control signals.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot using at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor of the at least one surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle], the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
receiving measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor;
determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor]; and
outputting the generated control signals.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the two-step analysis provided by the Federal Circuit (see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)), claims 10-17 are found to be directed to the abstract idea of an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
First, 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that claims must be directed to a, “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter,” to be patentable (Alice Corp v. CLS Bank 573 US 208, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), describing “Step 1” of the analysis). The present claims are found to satisfy “step 1” of the analysis as the claims are directed to methods, systems, and corresponding non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Second, the Supreme Court has further held that 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that patents cannot be granted to claims directed to, “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” (id. at 2350, a.k.a. “Step 2A” or “the judicially recognized exceptions to patentable subject matter”). Accordingly, independent claims 10 and 15-17 are directed to judicially recognized exceptions to patentable subject matter (i.e. the claims are not directed to patentable subject matter), because the claims recite(s) a method (and corresponding apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium) for receiving measurement data, determining whether an object has crossed a virtual wall based on the data, generating control signals based on the determination, and outputting the generated control signals.
These steps are directed to an abstract idea (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One), namely: mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activities that further correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as “collecting information (e.g. receiving measurement data), analyzing it (e.g. determining whether an object has crossed a virtual wall), and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. generating and outputting control signals without necessarily controlling a motor vehicle)" as described in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350. As such, the description in claims 10 and 15-17 of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract idea.
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two) because the specification does not provide any particulars of the claim elements that would alter the claims from being interpreted as directed to an abstraction of “collecting information (e.g. receiving measurement data), analyzing it (e.g. determining whether an object has crossed a virtual wall), and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. generating and outputting control signals without necessarily controlling a motor vehicle)."
As such, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims in view of the specification do not disclose sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as being directed to an improvement in computer functionality or other technology. McRO, 837 F.3d 1299 (2016), MPEP 2106.04(a).
Finally, the Supreme Court provided that once a judicially recognized exception is identified, it must be determined, “whether the balance of the claim adds significantly more,” (Alice at 2353, see also 2355, describing step 2B: “significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.”). In the present case, when viewed as a whole, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of generically referenced sensors, devices, and storage medium, however, these sensors, devices, and storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
Generic computer components (e.g. sensors, storage medium, devices) recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See Alice 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional). See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, comprising a server, telephone unit, and general purpose computers performing general purpose functions merely providing a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea are routine and conventional). See also In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 614 (2016) (upholding precedent that generic computer components are insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea, reciting Alice that, “Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). See also In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 614 (2016) (upholding precedent that generic computer components are insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea, citing Alice that, “Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). See also TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc., v. AKM Enterprise, Inc., 657 Fed.Appx. 991 (2016) (holding that storing, gathering, and analyzing data from generic sensors, including RPM sensors or fluid pressure sensors, to determine a state based on the sensor data is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101).
The use of generic computer components to process, store, transmit, and detect instructions does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Thus, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception identified above (i.e. the abstract idea).
Claims 11 and 13-14 are dependent on claim 10 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding “significantly more” to the abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
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 10-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi (JP 2019-087161 A) in view of Renganathan (DE 10 2019 114 399 A1) (For purposes of this examination, Examiner will refer to the English language translations of these references provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Nakabayashi discloses a method for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot, the method being performed in an environment [wherein the environment is intended to include at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor [intended to have a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle]]] (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 9-10, 15-16, 20-21, and related text), the method comprising the following steps:
receiving measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor (e.g. at least measurement unit 53, detector 9, sonar, laser radar, determination unit 56, camera, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, 54-55, 91, 103, Fig. 2, 11-13, and related text);
determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed a virtual wall (see e.g. at least ¶ 91, Fig. 11, and related text, generating a warning when the vehicle is parked out of the parking frame); and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle] (see e.g. at least ¶ 16, Fig. 1, and related text, performing parking assistance or autonomous valet parking); and
outputting the generated control signals (id.).
Additionally, Renganathan teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Nakabayashi including namely: determining, based on measuring data, whether an object has crossed a virtual wall, wherein at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed a virtual wall from outside in relation to a driving corridor (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, Fig. 1a-3, and related text); and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of a determination of whether at least one object has crossed a virtual wall] (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, performing an automatic parking function depending on whether a bounding box representing the vehicle including any overhanging attachments overlaps a threshold value box).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Nakabayashi by determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor] as taught by Renganathan in order to provide a reliable, cost-effective, and safe means of performing parking maneuvers by detecting and avoid obstacles (Renganathan: ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Nakabayashi teaches that the at least one object includes the motor vehicle (Nakabayashi: e.g. at least vehicle 1, see e.g. at least ¶ 91, Fig. 11, and related text), wherein the determination, based on the measuring data, of whether an object has crossed the virtual wall includes determining, based on the measuring data, whether the motor vehicle has crossed the virtual wall from inside in relation to the driving corridor, wherein the control signals are generated based on a result of the determination whether the motor vehicle has crossed the virtual wall from the inside in relation to the driving corridor (Nakabayashi: id.).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Nakabayashi teaches that the determination, based on the measuring data, of whether an object has crossed the virtual wall includes comparing the measuring data to reference measuring data (Renganathan: see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, 44, Fig. 5, and related text).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Nakabayashi teaches that the virtual wall is divided into a plurality of wall portions that extend along the driving corridor, wherein the determination, based on the measuring data, of whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, includes selecting at least one of the wall portions based on a movement of the motor vehicle along the driving corridor, wherein it is determined, only for the at least one selected wall portion, whether an object has crossed the at least one selected wall portion, so that it is not determined, for non-selected wall portions, whether an object has crossed non-selected wall portions (Nakabayashi: see e.g. at least ¶ 91, Fig. 11, and related text; Renganathan: see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, 44, Fig. 3-5, and related text).
Regarding claim 15, Nakabayashi discloses a device configured for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot using at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor of the at least one surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle] (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 2, 13, 18, and related text), the device configured to:
receive measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor (e.g. at least measurement unit 53, detector 9, sonar, laser radar, determination unit 56, camera, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, 54-55, 91, 103, Fig. 2, 11-13, and related text);
determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall (see e.g. at least ¶ 91, Fig. 11, and related text, generating a warning when the vehicle is parked out of the parking frame); and
generate control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle] (see e.g. at least ¶ 16, Fig. 1, and related text, performing parking assistance or autonomous valet parking); and
output the generated control signals (id.).
Additionally, Renganathan teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Nakabayashi including namely: determining, based on measuring data, whether an object has crossed a virtual wall, wherein at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed a virtual wall from outside in relation to a driving corridor (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, Fig. 1a-3, and related text); and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of a determination of whether at least one object has crossed a virtual wall] (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, performing an automatic parking function depending on whether a bounding box representing the vehicle including any overhanging attachments overlaps a threshold value box).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Nakabayashi by determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor] as taught by Renganathan in order to provide a reliable, cost-effective, and safe means of performing parking maneuvers by detecting and avoid obstacles (Renganathan: ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 16, Nakabayashi discloses a system for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 2, 13, 18, and related text), comprising:
at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot and having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle] (e.g. at least measurement unit 53, detector 9, sonar, laser radar, determination unit 56, camera, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, 54-55, 91, 103, Fig. 2, 11-13, and related text); and
a device [intended to:
receive measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor (id.),
determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall (see e.g. at least ¶ 91, Fig. 11, and related text, generating a warning when the vehicle is parked out of the parking frame), and
generate control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle] (see e.g. at least ¶ 16, Fig. 1, and related text, performing parking assistance or autonomous valet parking); and
output the generated control signals] (id.).
Additionally, Renganathan teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Nakabayashi including namely: a device [intended to determine, based on measuring data, whether an object has crossed a virtual wall, wherein at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed a virtual wall from outside in relation to a driving corridor (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, Fig. 1a-3, and related text); and
generate control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of a determination of whether at least one object has crossed a virtual wall]] (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, performing an automatic parking function depending on whether a bounding box representing the vehicle including any overhanging attachments overlaps a threshold value box).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Nakabayashi by configuring a device [intended to determine, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed a virtual wall from outside in relation to a driving corridor; and generate control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of a determination of whether at least one object has crossed a virtual wall]] as taught by Renganathan in order to provide a reliable, cost-effective, and safe means of performing parking maneuvers by detecting and avoid obstacles (Renganathan: ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 17, Nakabayashi discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for an at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle within a parking lot using at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the parking lot, each surroundings sensor of the at least one surroundings sensor having a scanning plane which defines a virtual wall of a driving corridor [intended for the motor vehicle] (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 2, 13, 18, and related text), the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
receiving measuring data signals which represent measuring data of the at least one surroundings sensor (e.g. at least measurement unit 53, detector 9, sonar, laser radar, determination unit 56, camera, see e.g. at least ¶ 28, 54-55, 91, 103, Fig. 2, 11-13, and related text);
determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall (see e.g. at least ¶ 91, Fig. 11, and related text, generating a warning when the vehicle is parked out of the parking frame); and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle] (see e.g. at least ¶ 16, Fig. 1, and related text, performing parking assistance or autonomous valet parking); and
outputting the generated control signals (id.).
Additionally, Renganathan teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Nakabayashi including namely: determining, based on measuring data, whether an object has crossed a virtual wall, wherein at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed a virtual wall from outside in relation to a driving corridor (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, 41, Fig. 1a-3, and related text); and
generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of a determination of whether at least one object has crossed a virtual wall] (see e.g. at least ¶ 19, performing an automatic parking function depending on whether a bounding box representing the vehicle including any overhanging attachments overlaps a threshold value box).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Nakabayashi by determining, based on the measuring data, whether an object has crossed the virtual wall, wherein the at least one object comprises an overhang projecting beyond a base surface of a further object, and wherein the determination comprises detecting whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside in relation to the driving corridor; and generating control signals [intended for at least partly automated control of a lateral and/or longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle based on a result of the determination of whether the overhang has crossed the virtual wall from outside the driving corridor] as taught by Renganathan in order to provide a reliable, cost-effective, and safe means of performing parking maneuvers by detecting and avoid obstacles (Renganathan: ¶ 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662