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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/465,653 filed on 09/12/2023.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 01/15/2026.
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.
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 1-2 and 4-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0016331 A1) in view of Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0122005 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Carlson teaches:
A method comprising: stopping, by one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle at a parking location;, (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st and 100th-105th paragraphs))
determining, by the one or more processors, a distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location;, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
sampling, by the one or more processors, a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the determined trajectories; and maneuvering, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge exceeding a threshold distance from the road edge,, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-91st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge includes determining a distance between the road edge and a tire of the autonomous vehicle that is (i) farthest from the road edge and (ii) on a side of the autonomous vehicle that is oriented towards the road edge., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 67th-71st paragraphs, FIG. 1 and 6))
Regarding Claim 4:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of points is sampled from a minimum distance from the road edge, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-30th, 37th-42nd, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 69th-71st paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
[…] to the threshold distance from the road edge., (See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-91st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising enabling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to engage a set of planning behaviors, and wherein the sampling is in response to engaging the set of planning behaviors., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 6:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein engaging the set of planning behaviors includes switching from a forward planning system of the autonomous vehicle to a maneuver planning system of the autonomous vehicle in order to determine the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 7:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein engaging the set of planning behaviors includes enabling a forward planning system of the autonomous vehicle to plan trajectories that allow for maneuvers in reverse., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 8:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Carlson further teaches:
[…] spent in an adjacent driving lane., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 5A-8))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing time, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 74th-75th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing distance maneuvered in an adjacent driving lane., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 5A-8))
Regarding Claim 10:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Carlson further teaches:
[…] maneuvering in reverse., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing time spent, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 74th-75th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing distance, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 70th paragraph))
[…] maneuvered in reverse., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 18:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, discarding a second of the determined trajectories from the determined trajectories based on whether the second of the determined trajectories extends more than a threshold distance into an adjacent driving lane., (See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-87th, 90th-91st, and 108th-109th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 19:
Carlson teaches:
A system comprising: one or more processors configured to: stop an autonomous vehicle at a parking location;, (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st and 100th-105th paragraphs))
determine a distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location;, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
sample a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determine for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; select one of the determined trajectories; and maneuver the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge exceeding a threshold distance from the road edge,, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-91st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Carlson further teaches:
The system of claim 19, further comprising the vehicle., (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st paragraph))
Regarding Claim 21:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: filtering the plurality of points to remove any points that would cause the autonomous vehicle to collide with another object., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 40th, 46th-48th, and 75th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 22:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold distance from the road edge comprises, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
[…] a maximum permitted distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge., (See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-91st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 23:
Carlson teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an autonomous vehicle, cause the autonomous vehicle to: stop the autonomous vehicle at a parking location;, (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 19th-21st and 100th-105th paragraphs))
determine a distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location;, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
sample a plurality of points each point corresponding to a parking location at various distances from the road edge; determine for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; select one of the determined trajectories; and maneuver the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Li teaches:
based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge exceeding a threshold distance from the road edge,, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-91st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance and engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time driving on a trajectory. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 24:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of points are sampled along the road edge at various distances between the road edge and a reference point on the autonomous vehicle., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, and 51st-57th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 25:
Carlson in view of Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 24. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 24, wherein determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle comprises setting each sampled point as a destination to plan a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to reach each sampled point., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, and 93rd paragraphs))
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable subject matter in claim 12 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part on a shortest distance between the road edge and a point of the plurality of points for the determined trajectory and wherein selecting a determined trajectories is based on the determined costs.
The allowable subject matter in claim 13 includes determining a cost for a determined trajectory based on expected time spent in an adjacent driving lane.
The allowable subject matter in claim 14 includes determining a cost for a determined trajectory based on expected time spent maneuvering in reverse.
The allowable subject matter in claim 15 includes determining a cost for a determined trajectory based on expected distance driven in an adjacent driving lane.
The allowable subject matter in claim 16 includes determining a cost for a determined trajectory based on expected distance driven in reverse.
The allowable subject matter in claim 17 includes determining a cost for a determined trajectory based on whether that determined trajectory extends more than a threshold distance into an adjacent driving lane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 15th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Carlson and Li as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Carlson mentions “Various embodiments relate generally to […] to a characteristics of an autonomous vehicle.” Furthermore, Carlson states “FIG. 1 is a diagram depicting […] according to the preferences of user 101.” Carlson further states “Computing platform 1300 includes […] by implementing one or more functions described herein.” See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st and 100th-105th paragraphs) In doing so, Carlson addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “stopping, by one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle at a parking location” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 19 and 23. Next, Carlson mentions “Vehicle controller 154 may include […] and the like.” Furthermore, Carlson states “According to some examples, […] along a preprogrammed path of travel.” Carlson further states “According to some embodiments, […] such as a person walking.” Carlson mentions “To illustrate selection of a path of travel, […] at distance 639.” See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs) In doing so, Carlson addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “determining, by the one or more processors, a distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 19 and 23. Finally, Carlson mentions “Thus, the vehicular drive parameters may include […] among other functions.” Furthermore, Carlson states “According to some examples, […] among other functions.” Carlson further states “FIG. 3 is a flow diagram depicting […] (e.g., without overshooting or erratically following predetermined waypoints).” Carlson mentions “According to some examples, […] to facilitate automatic customized parking.” Furthermore, Carlson states “In another example, […] which is adjacent another charging bay including vehicle 877 a.” See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs) In doing so, Carlson addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “sampling, by the one or more processors, a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the determined trajectories; and maneuvering, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 19 and 23.
Moreover, Li mentions “It is noted that a request from a user only represents […] to be equal to the predetermined distance.” See (Li: Detailed Description – 79th-91st paragraphs) In doing so, Li addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge exceeding a threshold distance from the road edge” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 19 and 23.
As a result, the combination of Carlson and Li addresses “stopping, by one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle at a parking location; determining, by the one or more processors, a distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location; in response to the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge exceeding a threshold distance from the road edge, sampling, by the one or more processors, a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the determined trajectories; and maneuvering, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories” as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claims 19 and 23.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights