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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/14/2025 is being entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 5 and 10 are canceled. Claim 11 is new. The objection to the drawings and claim(s) are overcome. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 are allowed. However, after further search and consideration, Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, responsive to this amendment, this rejection has been made final.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0369263 A1) hereinafter Suzuki in view of Aiba (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0173628 A1) hereinafter Aiba in view of Li (CN 114138303 A) hereinafter Li further in view of Noh (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0297624 A1) hereinafter Noh.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses a control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising:
a processor [see Paragraph 0037 - CPU] is configured to perform parking assistance control for autonomously parking the vehicle to a target position [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses a parking control apparatus that controls steering and the accelerator/brake in an autonomous manner and see Paragraph 0062 – discusses setting a target parking position]; and
a storage unit [see Paragraph 0037 - ROM] that stores a program necessary for travel control of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0037 - discusses that the parking control apparatus stores a parking control program],
wherein the processor [see Paragraph 0037 – CPU performed the parking control program stored on the ROM] is configured to perform first parking assistance control for starting movement of the vehicle to the target position in a state where a user of the vehicle is not in the vehicle as the parking assistance control [see Paragraphs 0097 and 0103 - discusses that an operator (user) gets off the vehicle and a remote parking operation is started to a set target parking position].
However, Suzuki fails to disclose that the processor is configured to update the program, after a power of the vehicle is turned off and the processor executes the first parking assistance control, and the processor is configured to determine whether to update the program based on a stopping position to which the vehicle is moved by the first parking assistance control and the target position.
Aiba discloses a processor [see Paragraph 0044 – discusses a control unit performs the processing of updating after a vehicle is turned off and parked] that is configured to update a program after a power of a vehicle is turned off and parked [see Paragraphs 0046-0048 – discusses determining that a vehicle is in an off state (S105) and that it has been parked for a reasonable amount of time, and then transitioning to an update mode (S106)].
Aiba suggests that updating a vehicle during driving of the vehicle is dangerous [see Paragraph 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify after the first parking assistance control is performed as taught by Suzuki to include updating a program after a vehicle is turned off as taught by Aiba because updating a vehicle during driving is dangerous [Aiba, see Paragraph 0006].
However, the combination of Suzuki and Aiba fails to disclose that the processor is configured to determine whether to update the program based on a stopping position to which the vehicle is moved by the first parking assistance control and the target position.
Li discloses a processor [see Paragraph 0042] that is configured to update a program, after parking [see Paragraphs 0109-0113 - discusses updating software for a vehicle after parking], and the processor is configured to update the program based on a stopping position to which the vehicle is moved by the first parking assistance control and the target position [see Paragraphs 0109-0113 - discusses that when the current position (stopping position) is the same as the target parking place, then an application program is updated].
Li suggests that by comparing the current position and target parking place improves the accuracy of program updating [see Paragraph 0113].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Suzuki and Aiba to update the program based on a stopping position and a target position as taught by Li in order to improve the accuracy of program updating [Li, see Paragraph 0113].
However, Li fails to elaborate on what “the same” is and does not explicitly teach: “when a degree of match between a stopping position to which the vehicle is moved by the first parking assistance control and the target position set in the first parking assistance control before the vehicle is moved is greater than a threshold.” as recited in claim 9.
Noh teaches how a computer (processor) determines that a current position and target position are “the same”. [see Paragraph 0027 – discusses that an electronic control unit (processor) determines that when a location (stopping position) of the vehicle is within a preset reference range (threshold) with respect to the location of the target space (target position) (see Paragraphs 0029-0035 – discusses how the vehicle location is determined), the electronic control unit outputs movement completion notification. When the location of the vehicle matches the location of the target space, the electronic control unit changes and outputs a color of an indicator indicating the location of the target space on the display screen, see Paragraph 0022 – discusses that the target space is set before the vehicle executes parking]. Therefore, Noh teaches how a computer determines that the current position and the target position are “the same” by using a degree of match using a threshold (preset reference range) of a current position and a target position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 are allowed. See Reasons for Allowance below.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance regarding claims 1 and 11. The claimed invention is directed updating a program based on parking assistance control.
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention(s):
Suzuki (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0369263 A1) hereinafter Suzuki is directed at performing first parking assistance control for starting movement of the vehicle to the target position in a state where a user of the vehicle is not in the vehicle as the parking assistance control [see Paragraphs 0097 and 0103 - discusses that an operator (user) gets off the vehicle and a remote parking operation is started to a set target parking position].
Aiba (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0173628 A1) hereinafter Aiba is directed at updating a program after a power of a vehicle is turned off and parked [see Paragraphs 0046-0048 – discusses determining that a vehicle is in an off state (S105) and that it has been parked for a reasonable amount of time, and then transitioning to an update mode (S106)].
Yamaguchi (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0222059 A1) hereinafter Yamaguchi is directed at updating a program after a power of a vehicle is turned off and parked [see Paragraph 0016 – discusses “when the user turns off the IG (ignition) power of the vehicle 20, the control system 200 predicts the time required for completing downloading the update program. When the time required for completing the downloading is 10 minutes or less, even if the IG power is turned off, the control system 200 maintains the wireless LAN communication function of the control system 200 for up to 10 minutes, and continues downloading the update program. When the downloading of the update program is completed, the control system 200 stops the wireless LAN communication function of the control system 200.”].
However, the combination Suzuki, Aiba, and Yamaguchi fails to disclose, or make obvious, these features of :
claim 1:
“updating the program is set more strictly when the first parking assistance control is executed than when the second parking assistance control is executed, the start condition includes a time from when the power of the vehicle is turned off to when the updating of the program is started, the start condition for updating the program is elapsing a first time since the power of the vehicle is turned off, when the first parking assistance control is executed, the start condition for updating the program is elapsing a second time since the power of the vehicle is turned off, when the second parking assistance control is executed, and the first time is longer than the second time.”, or
claim 11:
“update the program, after a power of the vehicle is turned off and the processor executes the first parking assistance control or the second parking assistance control, and a start condition for updating the program is set more strictly when the first parking assistance control is executed than when the second parking assistance control is executed, by setting a number of start conditions for updating the program when the first parking assistance control is executed more than a number of start conditions for updating the program when the second parking assistance control is executed.”.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 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 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.
/S.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665