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 amendments
This Office Action is in response to the amended file, filed on 07/14/2025. Claims 1/3 are amended and claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “parking row detection section”, “parking lot staying determination section”, “erroneous operation determination section”, and “control section” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure for the above-noted “section” is described as an ECU 10 (see Figure 1).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Fukata et al (U.S. Pub. NO. 2015/0321555), as applied to independent claim 1 above, in view Zagorski et al. (U.S. Pub. NO. 2011/0010034).
With regard to claim 1, Fukata discloses A driving assistance apparatus comprising: (The reference discloses a driving assistance apparatus) (Fukata, [007])
A parking row detection section which detects a parking slot(s) and/or a parked vehicle(s) around a vehicle on the basis of data of captured images of surroundings of the vehicle and detects a parking row in which a predetermined number or more of the detected parking slot(s) and/or parked vehicle(s) are successively located adjacent to each other in a predetermined direction; (The reference discloses using captured images to detect its surroundings such as parking slots and other parked vehicles adjacent to each other.) (Fukata, [020-022], [065])
A parking lot staying determination section which determines whether or not the vehicle is present in a parking lot having the parking row; (The reference discloses detection logic that determines the presence of the vehicle within a defined parking area based on sensor and image data.) (Fukata, [099-100])
An erroneous operation determination section which detects an operation state of an acceleration operation element operated by an occupant of the vehicle so as to accelerate the vehicle and which determines, on the basis of the operation state, whether or not the occupant has performed an erroneous operation of erroneously stepping on the acceleration operation element; (The reference describes detection of unintended pedal operation using sensor input and operation patterns to distinguish intentional vs erroneous inputs.) (Fukata, [007], [010], [023-025], [253])
And a control section which executes driving power reduction control for reducing driving power of the vehicle when the parking lot staying determination section determines that the vehicle is present in the parking lot and the erroneous operation determination section determines that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation, (The reference discloses a control module that reduces driving power reduction based on processing outputs from sensor inputs.) (Fukata, [010], [023-025], [253])
Even when the parking lot staying (The reference teaches detecting different parking lots.) (Fukata, [014], [056], [087])
Determination section determines that the vehicle is not present in the parking lot (The reference teaches step S102, when it is determined that the parking frame is not present, the process performed by the acceleration suppression operation.) (Fukata, [108])
However, Fukata does not teach Wherein in the case where, before elapse of a predetermined threshold time after execution of the driving power reduction control, the erroneous operation determination section determines that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation again, the control section executes the driving power reduction control again.
Zagorski teaches Wherein in the case where, before elapse of a predetermined threshold time after execution of the driving power reduction control, the erroneous operation determination section determines that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation again, the control section executes the driving power reduction control again even when determine when a likely pedal misapplication; (The reference teaches the first step is to determine if the driver has recently shifted the vehicle gear, e.g., within a threshold time period. This is typically because the confusion resulting from a wrong pedal application is typically exacerbated when the driver makes an additional mistake in gearing, determines if a gear shift has occurred within the recent past. If no gear shift has occurred, the method proceeds to step and no action is taken. If the gear shift has occurred within the threshold time period. The threshold value used in this determination can be selected based on a variety of factors. The higher the threshold value, the greater the number of pedals misapply situations in which mitigation may be applied. As one example, the threshold time can be selected to be within the range of 0.3 second and 2 seconds. The reference also discusses involving idling the torque request sent to the engine. This effectively cuts off the request for more power that would otherwise result from the application of the accelerator pedal. Thus, this technique also prevents the vehicle from accelerating in response to the misapplied pedal, and can thus prevent collision with the obstacle in the vehicle path.) (Zagorski, [021-022], [032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A driving assistance apparatus comprising: A parking row detection section which detects a parking slot(s) and/or a parked vehicle(s) around a vehicle on the basis of data of captured images of surroundings of the vehicle and detects a parking row in which a predetermined number or more of the detected parking slot(s) and/or parked vehicle(s) are successively located adjacent to each other in a predetermined direction; A parking lot staying determination section which determines whether or not the vehicle is present in a parking lot having the parking row; An erroneous operation determination section which detects an operation state of an acceleration operation element operated by an occupant of the vehicle so as to accelerate the vehicle and which determines, on the basis of the operation state, whether or not the occupant has performed an erroneous operation of erroneously stepping on the acceleration operation element; And a control section which executes driving power reduction control for reducing driving power of the vehicle when the parking lot staying determination section determines that the vehicle is present in the parking lot and the erroneous operation determination section determines that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation,…even when the parking lot staying determination section determines that the vehicle is not present in the parking lot disclosed by Fukata to include the Wherein in the case where, before elapse of a predetermined threshold time after execution of the driving power reduction control, the erroneous operation determination section determines that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation again, the control section executes the driving power reduction control again of Zagorski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to combine shortly after reducing driving power, the system detects the driver has made the same mistake again, the driving power reduction control will be reapplied with parking lot detection as suggested by Zagorski at [021-022], [032].
With regard to claim 2, Fukata-Zagorski discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Fukata discloses Wherein the parking lot staying determination section predicts a travel path of the vehicle on the basis of a travel state of the vehicle and determines that the vehicle is present in the parking lot when the predicted travel path intersect with the parking row. (The reference includes direction of travel detection and steering angle measurement which is has path prediction capabilities) (Fukata, [246], [247])
With regard to claim 3, Fukata discloses A driving assistance method comprising the steps of: (The reference discloses a method for acceleration suppression.) (Fukata, [007])
Detecting a parking slot(s) and/or a parked vehicle(s) around a vehicle on the basis of data of captured images of surroundings of the vehicle and detecting a parking row in which a predetermined number or more of the detected parking slot(s) and/or parked vehicle(s) are successively located adjacent to each other in a predetermined direction; (The reference discloses using captured images to detect its surroundings such as parking slots and other parked vehicles adjacent to each other.) (Fukata, [020-022], [065])
Determining whether or not the vehicle is present in a parking lot having the parking row; (The reference discloses detection logic that determines the presence of the vehicle within a defined parking area based on sensor and image data.) (Fukata, [099-100])
Detecting an operation state of an acceleration operation element operated by an occupant of the vehicle so as to accelerate the vehicle and determining, on the basis of the operation state, whether or not the occupant has performed an erroneous operation of erroneously stepping on the acceleration operation element; (The reference describes detection of unintended pedal operation using sensor input and operation patterns to distinguish intentional vs erroneous inputs.) (Fukata, [007], [010], [023-025], [253])
Executing driving power reduction control for reducing driving power of the vehicle upon determination that the vehicle is present in the parking lot and determination that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation; (The reference discloses a control module that reduces driving power reduction based on processing outputs from sensor inputs.) (Fukata, [010], [023-025], [253])
when the determination is made that the vehicle is not present in the parking lot; (The reference teaches detecting different parking lots, in step S102, when it is determined that the parking frame is not present, the process performed by the acceleration suppression operation.) (Fukata, [014], [056], [087], [108])
However, Fukata does not teach And, in the case where, before elapse of a predetermined threshold time after execution of the driving power reduction control, it is determined that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation again executing the driving power reduction control again even
Zagorski teaches And, in the case where, before elapse of a predetermined threshold time after execution of the driving power reduction control, it is determined that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation again executing the driving power reduction control again even when determine when a likely pedal misapplication; (The reference teaches the first step is to determine if the driver has recently shifted the vehicle gear, e.g., within a threshold time period. This is typically because the confusion resulting from a wrong pedal application is typically exacerbated when the driver makes an additional mistake in gearing, determines if a gear shift has occurred within the recent past. If no gear shift has occurred, the method proceeds to step and no action is taken. If the gear shift has occurred within the threshold time period. The threshold value used in this determination can be selected based on a variety of factors. The higher the threshold value, the greater the number of pedals misapply situations in which mitigation may be applied. As one example, the threshold time can be selected to be within the range of 0.3 second and 2 seconds. The reference also discusses involving idling the torque request sent to the engine. This effectively cuts off the request for more power that would otherwise result from the application of the accelerator pedal. Thus, this technique also prevents the vehicle from accelerating in response to the misapplied pedal, and can thus prevent collision with the obstacle in the vehicle path.) (Zagorski, [021-022], [032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Detecting a parking slot(s) and/or a parked vehicle(s) around a vehicle on the basis of data of captured images of surroundings of the vehicle and detecting a parking row in which a predetermined number or more of the detected parking slot(s) and/or parked vehicle(s) are successively located adjacent to each other in a predetermined direction; Determining whether or not the vehicle is present in a parking lot having the parking row; Detecting an operation state of an acceleration operation element operated by an occupant of the vehicle so as to accelerate the vehicle and determining, on the basis of the operation state, whether or not the occupant has performed an erroneous operation of erroneously stepping on the acceleration operation element; Executing driving power reduction control for reducing driving power of the vehicle upon determination that the vehicle is present in the parking lot and determination that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation; disclosed by Fukata to include the And, in the case where, before elapse of a predetermined threshold time after execution of the driving power reduction control, it is determined that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation again executing the driving power reduction control again even of Zagorski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to combine shortly after reducing driving power, the system detects the driver has made the same mistake again, the driving power reduction control will be reapplied with parking lot detection as suggested by Zagorski at [021-022], [032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 1-3
(A) Applicant argues… Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. Claim 4 is canceled and thus the rejection is moot.
As to (A), Examiner respectfully agrees
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 ALI BAKKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4321. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am to 3:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442.
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.
/ALI J BAKKAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
8/20/25