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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The RCE filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 remain pending in this application, and new claims 21-22 have been added. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combined references of Randler Martin and Herz do not disclose “determining a first direction based on the out-of-vehicle body movement of the target person; and controlling, based on a first distance being less than a first threshold and based on the out-of-vehicle body movement, the vehicle to travel in the first direction to a first location”. In particular, Applicant argues that the reference of Randler Martin in no longer modifiable with the reference of Herz in view of the amended claim language.
In the interest of clarity and providing a compact prosecution, Applicant's arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
The Examiner notes that page 9 of the arguments indicate that new claims 21-24 have been added, but only new claims 21-22 appear in the amended claim set.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler Martin et al., hereinafter Randler Martin (Document ID: WO2014146657A2) in view of Edling et al., hereinafter Edling (Document ID: US 20200324816 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Randler Martin teaches a vehicle summoning method, and a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining, based on a vehicle being in a parking state, identifier information of a person in a first range around the vehicle(see at least P [0017]-[0018]: “Detection of the approach and/or distance of one or more persons…Classification of the identified person, with regard to authorized and unauthorized persons, based on known or trained persons”.);
determining, based on the identifier information of the person in the first range meeting a preset condition, that the person is a target person (see at least P [0018]: “Classification of the identified person, with regard to authorized and unauthorized persons, based on known or trained persons”. Wherein the authorized person is a target person.);
obtaining an out-of-vehicle body movement of the target person (see at least P [0019]: “Recognition of gestures of a person classified as an authorized person”, see also P [0015] which clarifies that the person is outside the vehicle);
Randler Martin further teaches that body movements are compared with stored gestures in P [0022], but Randler Martin does not explicitly teach determining a first direction based on the out-of-vehicle body movement of the target person.
Instead, Edling, whose invention pertains to a parking assistance operation, teaches in P [0045] “an operation involving leaving a parking space to be controlled remotely by a vehicle user 2 using a device 3”, wherein the user is outside the vehicle in close proximity. In P [0058] the user interacts with the vehicle via the device to determine “a provisional vehicle target position PTP and a provisional vehicle motion path PMP”, which includes determination of a first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gesture recognition for an automatic parking maneuver of Randler Martin with the user interaction for specifying a direction for a vehicle summoning process of Edling in order to avoid any collisions with a user and provide convenience to the user as in P [0015] and P [0069] of Edling. In P [0011] Randler Martin discloses known methods for initiating the automatic parking maneuver with a remote control. In P [0048] Edling discloses surroundings capturing sensor technology 4.2 including “cameras, ultrasonic sensors, at least one radar sensor, etc.”, which works in conjunction with the sensor technology 4.3 for monitoring the position of the vehicle user more precisely. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the gesture indication system of Randler Martin with specific direction based parking maneuver planning of Edling with the expected results of avoiding any collisions with user and providing convenience to the user as in P [0015] and P [0069] of Edling.
In view of the modification, Randler Martin thus teaches
controlling, based on a first distance being less than a first threshold and based on the out-of-vehicle body movement, the vehicle to travel in the first direction to a first location, wherein the first location is obtained based on the vehicle and information about an ambient environment of the vehicle, and the first distance indicates a distance between the target person and the vehicle (see at least P [0026]: “According to a preferred embodiment of the method according to the invention, the execution of the automatic parking maneuver starts when the authorized person and/or the defined gesture of the authorized person are recognized within a certain distance from the vehicle.” See also “when a minimum distance to the vehicle is not reached” as a threshold for the first distance.).
Note again that the “first direction” is defined by the modification with Edling, wherein the automatic vehicle control parking operation is taught by both Randler Martin and Edling, and Edling is relied upon to show that an autonomous vehicle in an automatic parking maneuver can receive specific directional input from a human.
Regarding claim 13 specifically, Randler Martin additionally teaches a sensor (see at least P [0007] for exemplary environment detection sensors), a processor, and a controller (see at least P [0010] wherein “at least one electronic control unit is provided for evaluating the sensor signals and for controlling the actuators” is known in the art) to perform the functions above respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and the vehicle according to claim 13, and Randler Martin further teaches an automatic reversing maneuver in P [0009] with spatial awareness to the relative location relationship between the vehicle and “an adjacent object”.
But Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach a neighboring vehicle.
Instead, Randler Matin teaches in P [0009] “a specified minimum distance to an adjacent object” that is cautiously maintained. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjacent object awareness of Randler Martin and Edling with a neighboring vehicle in order to maintain a safe distance from another vehicle when performing an autonomous exit from a parking space.
Regarding claim 4, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and Randler Martin further teaches that
the first location is obtained based on a location of the vehicle relative to a first parking place, and the first parking place is a parking place in which the vehicle is currently located (see at least P [0005] “The vehicle is being pulled out of the parking space”, as well as P [0003] which establishes that the vehicle transitions from a “parking position to a handover position”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 4, and the vehicle according to claim 13, and Randler Martin further teaches that
the first location is a location at which the vehicle stops after traveling out of the first parking place (see at least P [0014]: “The handover position is therefore in particular a position in which the vehicle is completely parked, i.e. has preferably completely left the marked parking area.”)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and the vehicle according to claim 13, and Randler Martin further teaches awareness of a passenger outside of the vehicle in P [0011], but Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach:
detecting, based on the vehicle being in the parking state, the absence of a passenger inside the vehicle,
wherein the obtaining, based on the vehicle being in the parking state, the identifier information of the person in the first range around the vehicle is performed in response to the detecting the absence of a passenger inside the vehicle.
Instead, Randler Martin teaches in P [0015] that “the automatic parking maneuver is carried out while the person… is outside the vehicle”. More specifically, “the authorized person and optionally other persons only enter the vehicle when or after reaching the handover position”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outside person detection and awareness of Randler Martin and Edling with known methods of in vehicle cabin detection in order to exercise a design choice to ensure that the authorized person is outside of the vehicle when performing an automatic parking space exit maneuver.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and the vehicle according to claim 13, and Randler Martin further teaches in P [0011] that a remote control such as a vehicle key is a terminal that establishes a binding relationship with the vehicle in advance. But Randler Martin does not explicitly teach that
the first distance is a distance between a terminal and the vehicle.
Instead, Edling teaches in P [0045] that “vehicle user 2 and the device 3 are located in spatial proximity to the vehicle 1, for example at a distance of less than 10 m, in particular less than 6 m.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote control device of Randler Martin with the device and spatial proximity recognition of Edling in order to ensure that the automatic driving process is controlled by the vehicle owner or an authorized user, as P [0047] establishes numerous device types that can provide a user with access to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and Randler Martin further teaches
obtaining a start instruction when the vehicle is in the parking state (see at least P [0021]: “Starting an automatic parking maneuver when a defined gesture is detected to start an automatic parking maneuver”),
wherein the obtaining the out-of-vehicle body movement of the target person is performed in response to the start instruction matching a start instruction prestored in the vehicle (see at least P [0020]: “Matching the detected gestures with one or more defined gestures to start an automatic parking maneuver” The gesture is matched to a prestored instruction in the vehicle to start the process and register the body movement).
Regarding claim 12, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, but Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach that the body movement comprises one or more of:
a come-over movement, continuously knocking a hood of the vehicle, touching the hood of the vehicle and drawing a pattern, and/or a traffic police gesture.
Instead Randler Martin teaches in P [0022]: “gestures, in particular movements of hands, arms, legs and feet of persons recognized in the image data, in particular of persons who were previously recognized as authorized persons, can be compared with one or more stored gestures.” More specifically in P [0026] “The gesture can, for example, be taught individually by the system for different authorized persons and stored in a memory.”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachable gesture and body movement of a person of Randler Martin and Edling with a particular come-over gesture or other kind of human interaction of in order to train the autonomous vehicle to recognize a particular gesture associated with an authorized vehicle user.
Regarding claim 21, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and Randler Martin further teaches verifying whether the target person has a driving qualification in P [0014] through verification of an “authorized person” as “the driver, the vehicle owner and/or generally one of several persons authorized to enter and/or drive the vehicle.” In P [0015] “The authorized person can be notified, for example, by the automatic opening of the driver's door… that the handover position has been reached and the vehicle can or may be entered”. But Randler Martin does not explicitly teach
controlling, when the target person has a driving qualification, the vehicle to stop at a location so that a vehicle door at a driver seat faces the target person; or controlling, when the target person does not have a driving qualification, the vehicle to stop at a location so that a vehicle door of a front passenger faces the target person.
Instead, Edling teaches in P [0069] “It is preferably examined if the vehicle target position of the vehicle 1 can be chosen in such a way that the vehicle door on the driver's side is aligned with the location of the vehicle user.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handover position of Randler Martin with the door alignment and user evaluation of Edling in order to avoid any collisions with a user when exiting the parking space and to provide convenience to the user for easily entering the vehicle as in P [0015] and P [0069] of Edling.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler Martin in view of Edling, and further in view of Krekel et al., hereinafter Krekel (Document ID: US 20200086852 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 5, and the vehicle according to claim 16, and Randler Martin further teaches that the first location is a location at which the vehicle stops in P [0027] that the “vehicle doors preferably remain locked until the handover position is reached. When the handover position is reached, one or more doors of the vehicle can be unlocked and, for example, opened automatically”. Randler Martin is therefore teaching that the vehicle door is accessible when the vehicle stops at the first location, but Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach that only a partial vehicle body comprising at least one door has traveled out of the parking space.
Instead, Krekel, whose invention pertains to performing automated parking operations, teaches in at least P [0004] that a “pause execution of the remote parking operation” is done when “a minimum open door angle for an occupant to exit” is violated, indicating that the user must get out of the car before parking is complete.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handover position of Randler Martin and Edling with the minimum door angle evaluation of Krekel in order to allow users to enter the vehicle rapidly when the vehicle was previously in a narrow parking spot. Krekel establishes in P [0012] the concept of maximizing time in the car in scenarios "in which there is rain, snow, cold temperatures, or other inclement weather". Although Krekel is performing the parking maneuver rather than having the car exit the parking space, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the users must re-enter the vehicle when they no longer need the parking space, and if conditions remain the same there is a pressing preference to enter the vehicle as soon as possible, such as in the middle of a parking space exit maneuver.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler Martin in view of Edling, and further in view of Cho (Document ID: US 20200211400 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and the vehicle according to claim 13, and Randler Martin further teaches in P [0026]: “execution of the automatic parking maneuver starts when the authorized person and/or the defined gesture of the authorized person are recognized within a certain distance from the vehicle.” Edling teaches awareness of the distance of the vehicle movement and uses relative positioning to guide the maneuver. But Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach
controlling, based on the first distance not being less than the first threshold, and based on the body movement, the vehicle to travel to a second location, wherein the second location is obtained based on a preset point, the preset point being a coordinate point in a preset range around the target person.
Instead, Cho, whose invention pertains to an automated valet system, teaches in at least P [0088] “the infrastructure 400 may determine the pickup procedure starting area on the basis of the distance between the parking place of the autonomous valet parking apparatus 500 and the pickup zone”. In this case the distance between the target person and the vehicle is not less than the first threshold, that is to say that the distance is greater than an immediate range of the vehicle. The second location is thus the “predetermined pickup zone” that exists in a range around the target person, see FIG. 3 and P [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the body movement and distance awareness of Randler Martin and Edling with the target person spatial awareness and ability to proceed to a pickup zone in a range around the target person of Cho in order to facilitate an autonomous parking space leaving maneuver based on recognizing that the driver is ready for pickup, thereby mitigating risk of car collisions and alleviating congestion in a parking lot area (see P [0003] of Cho).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler Martin in view of Edling, and further in view of Schwitters et al., hereinafter Schwitters (Document ID: US 20150045991 A1)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 9, and Randler Martin further specially recognizing an authorized user in P [0018]. Randler Martin also teaches in P [0011] the use of a remote control such as a vehicle key for carrying out automatic parking maneuvers, but Randler Martin does not explicitly teach
determining, based on the vehicle being in the parking state, that the terminal exists in the first range of the vehicle;
Instead, Edling teaches in P [0045] that for an operation involving “leaving a parking space to be controlled remotely by a vehicle user 2 using a device 3”, the user is located in spatial proximity to the vehicle “at a distance of less than 10 m, in particular less than 6 m”, which necessarily involves determining that the terminal exists in the first range of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote control device of Randler Martin with the device and spatial proximity recognition of Edling in order to ensure that the automatic driving process is controlled by the vehicle owner or an authorized user, as P [0047] establishes numerous device types that can provide a user with access to the vehicle.
Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach
wherein the obtaining, based on the vehicle being in the parking state, the identifier information of the person in the first range around the vehicle is performed in response to the determining that the terminal exists in the first range of the vehicle.
Instead Schwitters teaches in P [0016] that “the authentication takes place when the vehicle user is located in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle, particularly within visual range.” The vehicle already exists firstly in a parked state as shown in FIG. 1, which is when detection of whether the terminal exists in the first range takes place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the authorized user classification and remote control device of Randler Martin and Edling with the radio interface range and transponder of Schwitters in order to ensure "that the automatic driving process is controlled by an authorized person only" as in P [0015] of Schwitters.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randler Martin in view of Edling, and further in view of Ueno et al., hereinafter Ueno (Document ID: US2021163013A1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Randler Martin teaches the method according to claim 1, and Randler Martin further teaches in P [0007] known methods for taking “into account a continuously conducted environmental assessment.” But Randler Martin does not explicitly teach
continually monitoring, by the vehicle, the target person while the vehicle is in an execution state, wherein the execution state involves the controlling the vehicle to travel in the first direction to a first location;
Instead, Edling teaches in P [0066] “it is examined if a collision with the vehicle user 2 exists at the provisional vehicle target position PTP”, therefore monitoring the target person while the vehicle is in an execution state. See also P [0024]: “during the motion of the vehicle into the provisional vehicle target position”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the known methods of continuous environmental monitoring of Randler Martin with the user monitoring of Edling in order to safely execute an autonomous parking space leaving operation that avoids any collisions with a user in real time as in P [0015] of Edling.
Further, Randler Martin teaches in P [0010] that continuously monitoring the environment in previously known parking methods involves the use of a “limit signal”, which implements common distance monitoring to avoid collision with nearby obstacles by updating or terminating a vehicle’s movement control. Edling teaches updating a vehicle a target position and planned motion path based on detection of a user who might be standing within the vehicle’s movement path. Therefore, although Randler Martin and Edling teach updating or terminating the controlling the vehicle to travel in the first direction to a first location, Randler Martin and Edling do not explicitly teach detecting a change in the out-of-vehicle body movement of the target person, and performing the updating or terminating of the vehicle control according to the newly detected body movement.
Instead, Ueno, whose invention pertains to an autonomous vehicle capable of collecting and responding to peripheral information, particularly when related to a person’s movement, teaches in P [0057] continuous intention estimation of a target person “while the traveling controller 30 is controlling the subject vehicle to travel on the basis of the estimated intention of the target person.” As disclosed in P [0037], P [0052]-[0054], and FIG. 8-9 a person’s out-of-vehicle body movement is directly measured and estimated by the vehicle system. P [0061] also discloses recognizing the gestures of a traffic controller who is direction traffic, which necessarily involves changing gestures and continuous monitoring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the continuous monitoring of a vehicle environment and a target person of Randler Martin and Edling with the continuous monitoring of a target person and their gestures in the vehicle's environment of Ueno in order to promote safe autonomous vehicle operation and alleviate confusion through gesture recognition as in P [0004] or Ueno.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20210089048 A1
Invention pertains to automatic recognition of a person’s status within or outside of the car.
Document ID: US 20210223770 A1
Invention pertains to a control arbitration method for controlling the vehicle from inside or outside.
Document ID: US 20220024449 A1
Invention pertains to controlling a vehicle to reach a target stop position based on a remote operation command.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656