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 Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 10/15/2025. Claims 1-30 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejections of claims 12-23 and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C 101 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/15/2025. Claims 12-23 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C 103. Regarding claims 1-11 and 24-26, no prior art is applied and no reasons for allowance are included, because the amendments filed 09/13/2023 are directed to new matter as addressed in the 112(a) rejection below.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claims 1 and 24 recite the limitation “selected from a group consisting of”. While the claimed operational parameters are recited in the specification, there is no recitation of the specifically claimed closed group of operational parameters, and therefore the amended language is directed to new matter. Claims 2-11 and 25-26 are rejected under 112(b) as depending from claims 1 and 24 respectively.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 are 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. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "selected from a group consisting of" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations in claims 4-8 are part of the Markush grouping. See MPEP § 2117.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-23 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,749,116 B1) in view of Nister et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0243371).
Regarding claim 27 and similarly with respect to claim 12
Young discloses “An apparatus, comprising: at least one memory;” (See Young Fig. 1, Chars. 125, 109 & 111 disclosing database for a vehicle apparatus in communication with on-board units of the vehicle. The on-board units additionally comprising memories, see Young Col. 5, L. 65-67 and Col. 6, L. 1-3 & L. 29-31.).
Young discloses “at least one transceiver;” (See Young Col. 27, L. 22-25 disclosing a communications interface provides a one-way or two-way communication coupling to a variety of external devices that operate with their own processors and L. 47-51 disclosing interface may include a radio transceiver.).
Young discloses “at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and the at least one transceiver, and configured to: obtain location information associated with a geographic location,” (See Young Col. 5, L. 59-62 disclosing the vehicle includes GPS receivers to obtain the coordinates of the vehicle and determine its location.).
Young discloses “compute a safety margin perimeter profile for the vehicle based at least in part on the location information and the vehicle information;” (See Young Col. 11, L. 25-27 and 35-43 disclosing a parking assistance platform alters the virtual zone based on an environment in which the vehicle is located and the density of traffic (corresponds to vehicle information) in the environment.).
Young discloses all the elements of claim 27 except “the vehicle information including at least one of steering angle, driver age, and continuous hours of vehicle operation by the driver;”, & “and activate a driver assistance system of the vehicle based on a location of an object relative to the safety margin perimeter profile.” (Young discloses automated braking and lane keeping for collision avoidance, however a notification is output in response to the zone and an object intersecting, see Young Abstract and Col. 4, L. 52-57.).
Nister discloses “the vehicle information including at least one of steering angle, driver age, and continuous hours of vehicle operation by the driver;” (See Nister Figs. 2A, 2B, & 2C and [0093] disclosing detecting vehicle information, including a steering angle for determining an occupied trajectory with a built-in safety margin to predict if an intersection or overlap may occur between the vehicle and the object, see Nister [0097] & [0054].).
Nister discloses “and activate a driver assistance system of the vehicle based on a location of an object relative to the safety margin perimeter profile.” (See Nister [0054] disclosing a system monitoring a vehicle occupied trajectory with a built-in safety margin to predict if an intersection or overlap may occur between the vehicle and the object, and implementing a safety procedure if an overlap occurs. The safety procedure may include lining up with a current lane and braking until completely stopped, see Nister [0052].).
Young and Nister are analogous art, because they are in the same filed of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Young to incorporate the teachings of Nister to include detecting specific vehicle information, including a steering angle, and activating a safety function of the vehicle in response to a vehicle safety buffer zone intersecting with an object. Doing so provides a known method in the art for collision avoidance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously determines whether a set of actions can be implemented to adjust the safety potential of a vehicle to decrease the likelihood and/or imminence of a collision occurring, beyond just sending a notification, see Nister [0051].
Regarding claim 13
Young discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein in the safety margin perimeter profile is asymmetric relative to a centerline of the vehicle.” (See Young Col. 11, L. 25-27 disclosing a parking assistance platform alters the virtual zone based on an environment in which the vehicle is located. The virtual zone may be asymmetric (the width of the virtual zone at the right side of the vehicle may be greater than the width of the virtual zone at the left side of the vehicle), see Young Col. 12, L. 64-67.).
Regarding claim 14
Young discloses all the elements of claim 12 and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “The method of claim 12 wherein the location information is an identification of a country and the geographic location includes an area defined by a border of the country.”.
Nister discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein the location information is an identification of a country and the geographic location includes an area defined by a border of the country.” (See Nister [0180] disclosing understanding rules that vary by country and region, and/or detecting situations where the rules apply.).
Young and Nister are analogous art, because they are in the same filed of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Young to incorporate the teachings of Nister to include identification of a country including the area defined by the border of the country. Doing so provides a known method in the art for collision avoidance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides rules and allow the vehicle to understand the local rules and conventions, see Nister [0180].
Regarding claim 15
Young discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein the location information includes map information configured to define the geographic location.” (See Young Col. 9, L. 16-20 disclosing the parking assistance platform may identify the initiation of the parking maneuver when: the vehicle is positioned within a location that is designated as a parking location (e.g., a parking garage, a parking space, a parking lot, etc.), as indicated by map data.).
Regarding claim 16
Young discloses “The method of claim 15 wherein the geographic location includes an intersection, a roadway, a driveway, a building, a parking area, or combinations thereof.” (See Young Col. 9, L. 16-20 disclosing the parking assistance platform may identify the initiation of the parking maneuver when: the vehicle is positioned within a location that is designated as a parking location (e.g., a parking garage, a parking space, a parking lot, etc.), as indicated by map data.).
Regarding claim 17
Young discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein the vehicle information include one or more ego vehicle parameters.” (See Young Col. 5, L. 40-50 disclosing the vehicle sensors may include a velocity and acceleration sensor. A speed at which the driver of the vehicle executes the parking maneuver may be evaluated for determining the driver familiarity level, and correspondingly adapting the virtual zone, see Young Abstract and Col. 9, L. 23-26.).
Regarding claim 18
Young discloses “The method of claim 17 wherein the one or more ego vehicle parameters include a speed value, an acceleration value, a steering angle value, or combinations thereof.” (See Young Col. 5, L. 40-50 disclosing the vehicle sensors may include a velocity and acceleration sensor. A speed at which the driver of the vehicle executes the parking maneuver may be evaluated for determining the driver familiarity level, and correspondingly adapting the virtual zone, see Young Abstract and Col. 9, L. 23-26.).
Regarding claim 19
Young discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein the vehicle information includes an indication of an experience level of an operator of the vehicle.” (See Young Abstract and Fig. 6, disclosing a virtual zone surrounding the vehicle, corresponding to a collision mitigation buffer zone for parking assistance, which may be adjusted based on a driver familiarity level. The virtual zone may be asymmetric (the width of the virtual zone at the right side of the vehicle may be greater than the width of the virtual zone at the left side of the vehicle), see Young Col. 12, L. 64-67.).
Regarding claim 20
Young discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein the vehicle information includes an indication of an environmental condition proximate to the vehicle.” (See Young Col. 11, L. 25-30 disclosing a parking assistance platform alters the virtual zone based on an environment in which the vehicle is located, including weather conditions.).
Regarding claim 21 and similarly with respect to claim 28
Young discloses “The method of claim 12 wherein the computing the safety margin perimeter profile for the vehicle includes providing the location information and the vehicle information as inputs to a neural network configured to output the safety margin perimeter profile.” (See Young Col. 11, L. 60-67 and Col. 12, L. 1-3 disclosing a machine learning model provided to output a suitable virtual zone for a driver, trained based on historical data including vehicle attribute data indicating attributes of the vehicles and the environmental conditions associated with locations in which the drivers executed the parking maneuvers.).
Regarding claim 22 and similarly with respect to claim 29
Young discloses “The method of claim 21 further comprising receiving the neural network via a wireless communication link.” (See Young Col. 28, L. 44-48 disclosing computer instructions, software and program code, may be read into memory via the network link.).
Regarding claim 30 and similarly with respect to claim 23
Young discloses “The apparatus of claim 27 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit an indication of the safety margin perimeter profile to the vehicle.” (See Young Col. 11, L. 60-63 disclosing the parking assistance platform employs a machine learning model to output a suitable virtual zone for a driver using a parking assistance feature.).
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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 is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights