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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 17, 2026 amends claims 1, 14-15, and 19-20. Claims 1-5 and 8-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments filed on March 17, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations in the independent claims have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot. While the Applicant has amended the independent claims to clarify and further prosecution, the newly presented limitations in the independent claims are taught by the previously cited references as explained in detail in the rejections that follow.
Applicant argues that:
“Romero's calculation is merely a static distance measurement made while the vehicle is driving to plan the vehicle's steering path into the parking spot. Romero does not teach or suggest determining that the vehicle is already in a park mode, and subsequently generating a spatial "boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle" in response to that park mode determination, as recited in claim 1. Instead, Romero assumes " ... that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37" (Romero [0027]).”
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Romero. Applicant’s recitation of the term “park mode” is interpreted by the Examiner to correspond a mode (i.e., a process) by which the vehicle undertakes to perform parking. Romero, at the Abstract, discloses an automated parking system for parking a vehicle within a parking slot and that the communication device includes a display that depicts a visual representation of the vehicle within the parking slot. Romero, at [0052], in conjunction with Fig. 7, depicts a flowchart illustrating a method for autonomously parking a vehicle 11 within a parking slot 37. Based on at least the foregoing, Examiner notes that Romero teaches a “park mode”. Furthermore, Romero, at [0053], discloses that once the ECM 17 has determined the location of the vehicle 11 in relation to a parking slot 37, the ECM 17 displays a visual representation of the vehicle 11 at a default position within a visualized parking slot 56 on a display 53 of a center console 21 of the vehicle 11 in Step 720, that the visualized vehicle 55 includes visualized driver side doors 32, visualized passenger side doors 34, and a rear door 35 of the vehicle 11, as well as their associated operating positions, which are expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle 55 and a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s). Examiner notes that displaying a visual representation of the vehicle 11 at a default position within a visualized parking slot 56 as well as their associated operating positions, which are expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle 55 and a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s) correspond to “wherein defining the boundary condition includes generating a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle.” Contrary to Applicant’s characterization of Romero, there is nothing “static” about the boundary condition determined by Romero’s ECM. Examiner notes that either an expression of the distance from the visualized vehicle and/or a percent of a maximum operating position of the door corresponds to defining a boundary condition including generating a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle, as recited in claim 1. Given the fact that the specification fails provide specific details and/or specific hardware and/or software implementation as to how a particular polygon shape is established, the Examiner interprets the term “boundary polygon” to include any type of boundary shape. As a consequence, the Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.
Applicant further argues that:
“Consequently, no proper combination of Romero and Katsuo discloses or renders obvious, "wherein controlling the closure actuator comprises making a determination as to whether the boundary polygon is within a distance threshold of the closure, and restricting an extension of the closure based on the determination," as further recited in claim 1.
Examiner disagrees as Romero at [0053] teaches above. Examiner notes that displaying a visual representation of the vehicle at a default position within a visualized parking slot as well as expressing operating positions, expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle, and as a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s) teaches the above-identified limitations recited in the last clause of claim 1. Thus, for at least this reason alone, Romero teaches making a determination as to whether the boundary polygon is within a distance threshold of the closure, and restricting an extension of the closure based on the determination. Moreover, as was previously stated by the Examiner, Romero at [0058], teaches that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s) and that Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. Alternatively, the Examiner notes that calculating the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot teaches making a determination as to whether the boundary polygon is within a distance threshold of the closure, and restricting an extension of the closure based on the determination.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 19 are moot as the Examiner has shown a teaching of the newly introduced limitations as shown in detail in the rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, the word “execute” should be changed to “executed” to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Each of these claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant is requested to provide evidence from the specification to support any amended claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation: “defining a new boundary condition, including a new boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle, based on the new 3D map;” as recited in claim 19.
Appropriate amendments are required to address the foregoing issues. No new matter should be added.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein in response to the first determination indicating that the obstacle exists along the path.” As a result of Applicant’s amendment, it is unclear what the claim is directed to. It appears that a number of limitations were inadvertently removed from the claim language.
Appropriate amendments are required to address the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Romero et al. (US 2024/0140476), hereinafter “Romero” in view of Katsuo (JP 2009114783) (English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Romero teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: collecting, in a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), sensor data using an ADAS sensor suite of the vehicle, the sensor data collected while the vehicle is moving and reflecting surroundings of the vehicle; (see Romero at [0019] which discloses that upon powering the vehicle 11, the first sensor 13 and the second sensor 15 capture the environmental data, and begin transmitting the data to the ECM 17; Examiner notes that capturing environmental data corresponds to collecting in a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). Examiner references the specification at [0004] which discloses that the ADAS sensor suite includes at least a camera and ultrasonic sensors. Examiner notes that the presence of at least the first and second sensors in the teachings of Romero corresponds to having an advanced driver assistance system. Also, see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15. Examiner maps first and second sensors to ADAS sensor suite of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
generating a three-dimensional (3D) map of the surroundings using the sensor data; performing a determination that the vehicle is in a park mode; defining a boundary condition regarding the vehicle based on the 3D map in response to the determination that the vehicle is in the park mode, wherein defining the boundary condition includes generating a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle; (see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15; see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, assuming that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37; see Romero at [0028] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the distance between the outermost point of the body of the vehicle 11 (other than the doors) and a side of the parking slot 37 by subtracting one half of the width of the vehicle 11 from the known distance between a vehicle center 25 and a first side 39 of the parking slot 37 and that this distance is determined to be the maximum distance that driver side doors 31 may be opened. Examiner maps the furthest point or maximum distance of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the recited boundary condition. Furthermore, Romero, at the Abstract, discloses an automated parking system for parking a vehicle within a parking slot and that the communication device includes a display that depicts a visual representation of the vehicle within the parking slot. Romero, at [0052], in conjunction with Fig. 7, depicts a flowchart illustrating a method for autonomously parking a vehicle 11 within a parking slot 37. Based on at least the foregoing, Examiner notes that Romero teaches a “park mode”. Moreover, Romero, at [0053], discloses that once the ECM 17 has determined the location of the vehicle 11 in relation to a parking slot 37, the ECM 17 displays a visual representation of the vehicle 11 at a default position within a visualized parking slot 56 on a display 53 of a center console 21 of the vehicle 11 in Step 720, that the visualized vehicle 55 includes visualized driver side doors 32, visualized passenger side doors 34, and a rear door 35 of the vehicle 11, as well as their associated operating positions, which are expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle 55 and a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s). Examiner notes that displaying a visual representation of the vehicle 11 at a default position within a visualized parking slot 56 as well as their associated operating positions, which are expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle 55 and a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s) correspond to “wherein defining the boundary condition includes generating a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle.” Examiner notes that either an expression of the distance from the visualized vehicle and/or a percent of a maximum operating position of the door corresponds to defining a boundary condition including generating a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle, as recited in claim 1. The specification does not provide specific details and/or specific hardware and/or software implementation regarding how a particular polygon shape is established. The published specification, at [0027], states that the boundary conditions can specify or indicate how far the closure is allowed to be extended and can be visualized as a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle 100. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the term “boundary polygon” to include any type of visualization of a boundary condition surrounding the vehicle, which is exactly what Romero teaches. The Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
wherein controlling the closure actuator comprises making a determination as to whether the boundary polygon is within a distance threshold of the closure, and restricting an extension of the closure based on the determination (see Romero at [0053] for example. Examiner notes that displaying a visual representation of the vehicle at a default position within a visualized parking slot as well as expressing operating positions, expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle, and as a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s) teaches the above-identified limitations recited in the last clause of claim 1. Thus, Romero teaches making a determination as to whether the boundary polygon is within a distance threshold of the closure, and restricting an extension of the closure based on the determination. Moreover, as was previously stated by the Examiner, Romero at [0058], teaches that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s) and that Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. Alternatively, the Examiner notes that calculating the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot teaches making a determination as to whether the boundary polygon is within a distance threshold of the closure, and restricting an extension of the closure based on the determination. Examiner notes that inhibiting operation of the door(s) corresponds to restricting an extension of the closure.)
Romero discloses of the closure of a vehicle (see Romero at [0015] which discloses that the system displays an open position of the door in relation to a side or rear of the parking slot, such that the user is able to determine the maximum operating position of the door of the vehicle while the vehicle is in the parking slot. Examiner maps door to closure.). Romero does not expressly disclose and controlling a closure actuator [of the closure of the vehicle] based on the boundary condition, the closure actuator configured for opening or closing the closure, the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor which in a related art Katsuo teaches (see Katsuo at the Abstract (page 1) which discloses the problem to be solved: To provide a vehicular door opening/closing angle control device which can open a vehicular door to a maximum angle that can avoid contact with an obstacle even if a force is applied in a door opening direction when the driver gets off an automobile in which the obstacle exists adjacent to the door, and the solution: The vehicular door opening/closing angle control device is formed of: a rear camera 1 which acquires circumferential image data of the driver's own vehicle; a door opening/closing angle controller 3 for obtaining the maximum door opening/closing angle of the driver's own vehicle, that is allowed for the vehicle when the driver rides off the vehicle, based on the circumferential image data acquired by the rear camera 1; and a door opening/closing angle setting actuator 5 for setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle, based on a control command from the door opening/closing angle controller. Examiner maps door opening/closing angle controller and/or door opening/closing angle setting actuator to the recited closure actuator. Examiner further notes that the use of the rear camera to acquire circumferential image data obviates the need for an obstacle detection sensor. Therefore, Katsuo teaches the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to control a closure actuator of a closure of the vehicle based on the boundary condition, the closure actuator configured for opening or closing the closure, the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor, as taught by Katsuo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so it is possible for a driver to get off a vehicle without worrying about opening and closing of the door, as suggested by Katsuo at the Background-Art (page 1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the ADAS sensor suite includes at least a camera and ultrasonic sensors, and wherein the camera and ultrasonic sensors are used in collecting the sensor data (see Romero at [0019] which discloses that to collect the environmental data, the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 may include one or more of a camera, LiDAR sensor, radar sensor, ultrasonic sensor, or other optical sensors, and the first sensor 13 may be the same sensor type or a different sensor type from the second sensor 15 and that the number of sensors is not limited to two, and may include any number of sensors without departing from the nature of the invention; see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15.)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the ADAS sensor suite further includes a radar, and wherein also the radar is used in collecting the sensor data (see Romero at [0019] which discloses that to collect the environmental data, the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 may include one or more of a camera, LiDAR sensor, radar sensor, ultrasonic sensor, or other optical sensors, and the first sensor 13 may be the same sensor type or a different sensor type from the second sensor 15 and that the number of sensors is not limited to two, and may include any number of sensors without departing from the nature of the invention; see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein collecting the sensor data comprises performing 3D tracking of the surroundings (see Romero at [0023] which discloses that to identify objects within the environment, the ECM 17 performs feature extraction on the environmental data using an object detection algorithm, that for example, the ECM 17 processes the sensor data through a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), such as LeNet, AlexNet, ResNet, or equivalent, where a section of the data is initially processed through a series of convolution operations, that the convolution operations determine the probability of a feature being located within the data, and that once the optical data is convoluted, the optical data is processed through pooling operations, which down sample the optical data into a useful feature map based on the neural network's training. Romero at [0023] further discloses that as the optical data also includes the three-dimensional locations of the scanned objects, once the feature extraction is complete the vehicle 11 knows the identity and location of an object within the environment. Examiner notes that identifying objects in the environment by way of an object detection algorithm using optical data that includes three-dimensional locations of the scanned objects corresponds to collecting the sensor data comprises performing 3D tracking of the surroundings. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the closure includes a door of the vehicle (see Romero at [0015] which discloses a door of a vehicle; see Katsuo at Abstract which discloses a vehicular door.)
Regarding claim 9, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein controlling the closure actuator based on the boundary condition comprises opening the closure (see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations; Examiner previously mapped the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the boundary condition; see Katsuo at page 3 which discloses that the automatic door actuator 4 automatically opens and closes the door of the host vehicle according to a control command from the door opening / closing angle controller 3.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein controlling the closure actuator based on the boundary condition comprises closing the closure (see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations; Examiner previously mapped the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the boundary condition; see Katsuo at page 3 which discloses that the automatic door actuator 4 automatically opens and closes the door of the host vehicle according to a control command from the door opening / closing angle controller 3.)
Regarding claim 11, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user input to actuate the closure, wherein the closure actuator is controlled in response to receiving the user input (see Katsuo at pages 9-10, for example, which discloses that the door opening / closing operation may be performed in the manual mode as in a general vehicle and that the present invention can also be applied to a vehicle that manually opens a door.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the user input is generated by an application that is executed by a vehicle system or that is executed by a mobile electronic device (see Romero at [0042] which discloses that as a whole, the vehicle 11 is able to receive user input via the touchscreen 63; see Romero at [0051] which discloses that smartphone 75 also includes a data bus 19, a display 77, a memory 79, a touchscreen 81, a processor 83, and a transceiver 85, the smartphone 75 is capable of capturing the user's touch input, which is relayed back to the ECM 17.)
Regarding claim 15, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the boundary polygon is within the distance threshold; and causing the closure actuator not to extend the closure in response thereto (see Romero at [0058] which discloses that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s). Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. Examiner maps the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened to whether the boundary condition is within a distance threshold of the closure. Conversely, the Examiner notes that when the parking slot inhibits the operation of the door(s), the ECM would determine that the applicable door(s) may not be fully opened. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification.)
Regarding claim 19, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting new sensor data; (see Romero at [0016] which discloses that automated parking system of the vehicle 11 includes a first sensor 13 and a second sensor 15, which collect and transmit environmental data to an Electronic Control Module (ECM) 17 via a data bus 19; see Romero at [0019] which discloses that upon powering the vehicle 11, the first sensor 13 and the second sensor 15 capture the environmental data, and begin transmitting the data to the ECM 17; Examiner notes that capturing environmental data corresponds to collecting in a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). Examiner references the specification at [0004] which discloses that the ADAS sensor suite includes at least a camera and ultrasonic sensors. Examiner notes that the presence of at least the first and second sensors in the teachings of Romero corresponds to having an advanced driver assistance system. Examiner further notes that the sensors operate as soon as the vehicle is powered and the data is collected or captured continuously while the vehicle is powered. Therefore, new sensor data is collected continuously when the vehicle is powered or operational. Also, see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15. Examiner maps first and second sensors to ADAS sensor suite of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
generating a new 3D map of the surroundings using the new sensor data; defining a new boundary condition, including a new boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle, based on the new 3D map; (see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15; see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, assuming that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37; Examiner maps the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the boundary condition. Examiner notes that the ECM is operational while the vehicle is powered and that the trigonometric calculations are also performed while the vehicle is operational or powered. Therefore, new environmental data and/or sensor data is processed by the ECM to generate new 3D maps and new boundary conditions. Also, see Romero at [0026] which discloses that the sample path 23 of a vehicle 11 may position the vehicle at the center 25 of the parking slot 37 or closer to a second side 43 in order to open the driver side doors 31 of the vehicle to its maximum operating position. Examiner maps the sample path that positions the vehicle at the center of the parking slot to an initial iteration of the method and the sample path that positions to vehicle closer to a second side as the next or new iteration of the method. Alternatively, and/or additionally, see Romero at [0054], which discloses that as the visualized vehicle 55 is translated within the visualized parking slot 56, the ECM 17 calculates the distance between the center of the visualized vehicle 55 and the sides of the visualized parking slot 56 and updates the operating positions of the various doors according to the determined distance, as described above. Examiner notes that updating the operating positions of the various doors corresponds to including a new boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle.)
and controlling the closure actuator based on the new boundary condition (see Katsuo at the Abstract (page 1) which discloses the problem to be solved: To provide a vehicular door opening/closing angle control device which can open a vehicular door to a maximum angle that can avoid contact with an obstacle even if a force is applied in a door opening direction when the driver gets off an automobile in which the obstacle exists adjacent to the door, and the solution: The vehicular door opening/closing angle control device is formed of: a rear camera 1 which acquires circumferential image data of the driver's own vehicle; a door opening/closing angle controller 3 for obtaining the maximum door opening/closing angle of the driver's own vehicle, that is allowed for the vehicle when the driver rides off the vehicle, based on the circumferential image data acquired by the rear camera 1; and a door opening/closing angle setting actuator 5 for setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle, based on a control command from the door opening/closing angle controller. Examiner maps door opening/closing angle controller and/or door opening/closing angle setting actuator to the recited closure actuator. Also, see Romero, at [0053], discloses that once the ECM 17 has determined the location of the vehicle 11 in relation to a parking slot 37, the ECM 17 displays a visual representation of the vehicle 11 at a default position within a visualized parking slot 56 on a display 53 of a center console 21 of the vehicle 11 in Step 720, that the visualized vehicle 55 includes visualized driver side doors 32, visualized passenger side doors 34, and a rear door 35 of the vehicle 11, as well as their associated operating positions, which are expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle 55 and a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s). Examiner notes that setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle and/or visualizing the operating positions of the door(s), which are expressed both in terms of distance from the visualized vehicle 55 and a percent of a maximum operating position of the door(s) teach controlling the closure actuator based on the new boundary condition. Examiner notes that door angle maximum settings and limits and visualized operating positions in terms of distance and a percent of maximum operating position of the door(s) correspond to new boundary condition.)
Claims 20-22 are directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the computer-implemented method of claims 1-3. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1-3 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claims 20-22. Therefore, claims 20-22 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-3.
Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Romero et al. (US 2024/0140476), hereinafter “Romero” in view of Katsuo (JP 2009114783) (English translation attached) and further in view of Chinthalapudi et al. (US 2024/0400041).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Romero does not expressly disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the radar is a short-range radar which in a related art Chinthalapudi teaches (see Chinthalapudi at [0025] which discloses that in one example, the sensing devices 40a-40n include at least one medium or short-range sensing device 28a, such as a medium or short-range radar system 40a.; also, see Chinthalapudi at [0037] which discloses a short-range radar system 40a.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include wherein the radar is a short-range radar, as taught by Chinthalapudi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to include one or more sensing devices that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment of the vehicle, as suggested by Chinthalapudi at [0025].
Claim 23 is directed toward a vehicle that recites limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations recited in the computer-implemented method of claim 4. Therefore, the cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 4 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claim 23. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Romero et al. (US 2024/0140476), hereinafter “Romero” in view of Katsuo (JP 2009114783) (English translation attached) and further in view of Kothari et al. (US 2017/0138108).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Romero does not expressly disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising performing a first determination, in response to receiving the user input, whether an obstacle exists along a path of an extension of the closure which in a related art Kothari teaches (see Kothari at [0009], for example, which discloses that the present invention can use sensors to identify the external objects or oncoming traffic, and provide a self-stopping feature on the vehicle doors that can help to prevent accidents; see Kothari at [0051] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further 102, 202, 302, 402 if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users. Kothari at [0051] notes that oncoming traffic can be anything that can cause damage to the vehicle door, such as, another vehicle, cyclist, people, motorbike, scooter, etc. that are either coming from front or from behind. Kothari at [0051] further notes that an external object can also be anything that can cause damage to the vehicle door, for example: another vehicle parked in parking lot, building wall if vehicle was parked next to building wall, road sign pillar/pole, water hydrant, etc. and that this solution will help to prevent accidents and also indirectly remove the fear from the vehicle users that they might hit another object while opening their vehicle doors and vice versa. Examiner notes that the identification of external objects or oncoming traffic as well as the detection of oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened corresponds to a determination of whether an obstacle exists along a path of an extension of the closure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to determine whether an obstacle exists along a path of an extension of the closure, as taught by Kothari.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to prevent door related accidents, as suggested by Kothari at the Background section, [0002-0005].
Regarding claim 14, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein in response to the first determination indicating that the obstacle exists along the path. (see Romero at [0058] which discloses that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s). Examiner notes that for the vehicle to inhibit operation of the door(s), the vehicle has determined that an obstacle existed in the path.)
Regarding claim 16, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein in response to the first determination indicating that the obstacle does not exist along the path, the method further comprises performing a second determination of whether oncoming traffic exists along the path of the extension of the closure (see Kothari at [0009], for example, which discloses that the present invention can use sensors to identify when the vehicle user is about to open the vehicle door, or to identify the external objects or oncoming traffic, and provide a self-stopping feature on the vehicle doors that can help to prevent accidents.)
Regarding claim 17, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein in response to the second determination indicating that the oncoming traffic does not exist along the path, controlling the closure actuator comprises causing the closure actuator to extend the closure (see Romero at [0058] which discloses that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s). Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. See Kothari at [0008] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users. Also, see Kothari at [0054] which discloses that this invention would be applicable to any type of vehicles that have doors or an opening to be able to come out of the vehicle and that in addition, whether it's the user of the vehicle who opens or closes the door or the software module that opens or closes the door automatically based on user input or the autonomous self-driving vehicle's instructions, all of those situations would be valid and considered within the spirit and scope of the present invention.)
Regarding claim 18, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein in response to the second determination indicating that the oncoming traffic exists along the path, controlling the closure actuator comprises causing the closure actuator not to extend the closure (see Kothari at [0008] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users; see Kothari at [0009], for example, which discloses that the present invention can use sensors to identify the external objects or oncoming traffic, and provide a self-stopping feature on the vehicle doors that can help to prevent accidents; see Kothari at [0051] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further 102, 202, 302, 402 if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights