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 response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 7/30/2025. Applicant amended claims 1–5; and added claims 6–9. Claims 1–9 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 7/30/2025 obviate said claim objections – accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments filed on 7/30/2025 obviate said claim interpretation – accordingly, the claim interpretations under § 112(f) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 7/30/2025 obviate said claim rejections – accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(b) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 7/30/2025 have been fully 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.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1 and 5–9 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa et al. (US20170028914A1; “Kiyokawa”) in view of Shimizu (US20050231341A1; “Shimizu”) and in view of Indoh et al. (US20190073902A1; “Indoh”)
As to claim 1, Kiyokawa discloses a parking assistance device assisting an operation to park an own vehicle in a parking spot, and/or an operation to exit the own vehicle from the parking spot, comprising:
a surrounding sensor to acquire information about objects existing around the own vehicle (“Each of the imaging units 15 sequentially captures images of an external environment around the vehicle body 2, which contains road surfaces on which the vehicle 1 is capable of moving, or areas where the vehicle 1 can be parked, and each of the imaging units 15 outputs captured image data.” See at least ¶ 35 and FIGS. 2 and 4.); and
a processor (ECU 14 comprises at least a central processing unit (CPU) 14a – see at least ¶¶ 41–42 and FIG. 4.) configured to
set a target position based on the information acquired by the surrounding sensor (“The ECU 14 serves as the movement control unit 145 to start an automatic steering mode in which automatic steering is performed, so as to control each part of the vehicle 1 such that the vehicle 1 moves to the target parking position P3 of the movement target area 200 along the first movement route RTP1” – see at least ¶ 69 and FIG. 6.), and controlling the own vehicle to automatically move along the target route and reach the target position (“The ECU 14 serves as the movement control unit 145 to start an automatic steering mode in which automatic steering is performed, so as to control each part of the vehicle 1 such that the vehicle 1 moves to the target parking position P3 of the movement target area 200 along the first movement route RTP1” – see at least ¶ 69 and FIG. 6..), wherein
set a target route to reach the target position based upon a determination that a route is available that allows the own vehicle to reach the target position without making contact with all the first objects and all the second objects (“In a case where the obstacle 303 is small, it is considered that the detection unit 141 detects the distance between the vehicle 1 and the obstacle 303, but may not be able to detect the position of the obstacle 303. Since the second movement route RTP2 determined by the movement route determination unit 144 is positioned further away from the other vehicle 301 than the first movement route RTP1, even if the position of the obstacle 303 is uncertain, the vehicle 1 is capable of traveling toward the target parking position P3 via reverse turning of the steering wheel while avoiding the obstacle 303.” See at least ¶ 108. See also FIGS. 8 and 13 which illustrate trajectories RTP1 and RTP2, respectively. Examiner note: Here, the other vehicle 301 analogizes to a first object which may obstruct the progress of the own vehicle, and the obstacle 303 analogizes toa second object which is unclear whether not it obstructs the progress of the own vehicle, wherein said uncertainty stems from the uncertain position of obstacle 303. Therefore, calculating route RTP2 results in a setting a target route as a route that can reach a target parking position without making contact with the claimed first and second objects.), and
execute parking assistance control to assist driving operation by the driver by controlling the own vehicle to automatically move along the target route and reach the target position (See at least ¶¶ 69 and 108.).
Kiyokawa fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the information includes a height corresponding to each of the objects respectively; and
the processor is configured to
identify all of the objects that have a height greater than a first threshold height as first objects, which are determined to obstruct progress of the own vehicle,
wherein the first threshold height is predetermined based upon a first proportion of a height of a lowermost surface of a bumper or an underpanel of the own vehicle from a ground surface.
Nevertheless, Shimizu teaches:
wherein the sensor information includes a height corresponding to each of the objects respectively; identify all of the objects that have a height greater than a first threshold height as first objects, which are determined to obstruct progress of the own vehicle, wherein the first threshold height is predetermined based upon a first proportion of a height of a lowermost surface of a bumper or an underpanel of the own vehicle from a ground surface (“If the acquired height of the obstacle is less than a preset height, then the obstacle is displayed as a safe obstacle. If the acquired height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the preset height, then the obstacle is displayed as a dangerous obstacle.” Abstract; see also FIG. 1. “The preset height is the same as the tentative height ‘X′’ of the obstacle, i.e., an allowable maximum height that does not obstruct the travel of the vehicle 2, and may be the height of the bumper of the vehicle 2, for example.” ¶ 36.).
Kiyokawa discloses: a parking assistance device for assisting an own vehicle to park in a parking spot, comprising: a surrounding sensor, a processor which executes parking assistance control by at least automatically moving an own vehicle along a target route to reach a target position, wherein the processor is configured to set a target route as one which does not make contact with first objects, which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, and second objects, which are unclear whether or not they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Shimizu teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a first threshold as first objects which obstruct progress of the own vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kiyokawa to include the feature of: wherein the sensor information includes a height corresponding to each of the objects respectively; identify all of the objects that have a height greater than a first threshold height as first objects, which are determined to obstruct progress of the own vehicle, wherein the first threshold height is predetermined based upon a first proportion of a height of a lowermost surface of a bumper or an underpanel of the own vehicle from a ground surface, as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for determining whether an obstacle is safe or not for traversal by a vehicle. (See, e.g., Shimizu, ¶ 9.)
The combination of Kiyokawa and Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose:
Identify all of the objects that have a height equal to or below the first threshold height and above a second threshold height as second objects, which are determined to be unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle,
the second threshold height is predetermined based upon a second proportion of the height of the lowermost surface of the bumper or an underpanel of the own vehicle from the ground surface, wherein the second threshold height is lower than the first threshold height.
Nevertheless, Indoh teaches: identify all of the objects that have a height equal to or below the first threshold height and above a second threshold height as second objects, which are determined to be unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle, the second threshold height is predetermined based upon a second proportion of the height of the lowermost surface of the bumper or an underpanel of the own vehicle from the ground surface, wherein the second threshold height is lower than the first threshold height (“The PSECU 10 selects, as a ‘potential wheel stopper’, the predetermined height obstacle other than the ‘potential contact obstacle’. In other words, the potential wheel stopper is the predetermined height obstacle whose height H is equal to or higher than the threshold height H1th and is lower than the threshold height H2th, among the predetermined obstacles in the determination area OA1.” ¶ 117.).
Kiyokawa discloses: a parking assistance device for assisting an own vehicle to park in a parking spot, comprising: a surrounding sensor, a processor which executes parking assistance control by at least automatically moving an own vehicle along a target route to reach a target position, wherein the processor is configured to set a target route as one which does not make contact with first objects, which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, and second objects, which are unclear whether or not they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Shimizu teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a first threshold as first objects which obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Indoh teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a second threshold but lower than a first threshold as objects which are unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kiyokawa and Shimizu to include the feature of: identify all of the objects that have a height equal to or below the first threshold height and above a second threshold height as second objects, which are determined to be unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle, the second threshold height is predetermined based upon a second proportion of the height of the lowermost surface of the bumper or an underpanel of the own vehicle from the ground surface, wherein the second threshold height is lower than the first threshold height, as taught by Indoh, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “support a parking operation of a driver of the own vehicle.” (Indoh, ¶ 1.)
Independent claim 5 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first proportion is one-half of the height of the lowermost surface of the bumper or the underpanel of the own vehicle from the ground surface, and the second proportion is one-quarter of the height of the lowermost surface of the bumper or the underpanel of the own vehicle from the ground surface.
However, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh. Recall from at least the rejection of claim 1 that the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh yields:
a first threshold height predetermined based upon a first proportion of a height of a lowermost surface of a bumper of the own vehicle from a ground surface; and
a second threshold height predetermined based upon a second proportion of the height of the lowermost surface of the bumper of the own vehicle from the ground surface, wherein the second threshold height is lower than the first threshold height.
Critically, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.) Here, the prior art discloses the general conditions of defining a first and second threshold heights based upon a proportion of a height of a bumper of an own vehicle, wherein the second threshold is lower than the first threshold, for the purposes of obstacle collision avoidance during automated parking. Therefore, discovering the optimal proportions (one-half and one-quarter, respectively) would involve only routine skill in the art as it would only require routine skill to adjust threshold values to arrive at optimal threshold values which distinguish between impassable objects and potentially-passable objects. Examiner notes that in the instant application Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for establishing first and second thresholds at one-half and one-quarter, respectively – at best, the specification sets forth that these proportions are merely examples. (See PGPUB, ¶ 41.) Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 8 and 9, Kiyokawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the processor configured to determine that objects drawn on a road surface that have a height of zero do not constitute obstacles.
Nevertheless, Shimizu teaches: wherein the processor configured to determine that objects drawn on a road surface that have a height of zero do not constitute obstacles (“If the acquired height of the obstacle is less than a preset height, then the obstacle is displayed as a safe obstacle. If the acquired height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the preset height, then the obstacle is displayed as a dangerous obstacle.” Abstract; see also FIG. 1. “The preset height is the same as the tentative height ‘X′’ of the obstacle, i.e., an allowable maximum height that does not obstruct the travel of the vehicle 2, and may be the height of the bumper of the vehicle 2, for example.” ¶ 36. Examiner Note: The foregoing necessarily entails that objects that have a height of zero will be considered as a “safe obstacle” because a value of zero will always be lower than a set preset height; if the preset height is set at zero then Shimizu would be inoperable for its intended purpose of detecting obstacles.).
Kiyokawa discloses: a parking assistance device for assisting an own vehicle to park in a parking spot, comprising: a surrounding sensor, a processor which executes parking assistance control by at least automatically moving an own vehicle along a target route to reach a target position, wherein the processor is configured to set a target route as one which does not make contact with first objects, which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, and second objects, which are unclear whether or not they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Shimizu teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a first threshold as first objects which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, wherein the processor configured to determine that objects drawn on a road surface that have a height of zero do not constitute obstacles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kiyokawa to include the feature of: wherein the processor configured to determine that objects drawn on a road surface that have a height of zero do not constitute obstacles, as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for determining whether an obstacle is safe or not for traversal by a vehicle. (See, e.g., Shimizu, ¶ 9.) Also, it is generally well-known in the vehicle control art that an object with a height of “zero” does not constitute an obstacle.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa in view of Shimizu and in view of Indoh as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Tsujino et al. (US20200079359A1; “Tsujino”).
As to claim 2, the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh fails to explicitly disclose: wherein based upon a determination that the route is not available that allows the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting all of the first objects and any of the second objects, the processor is configured to set the target route as a route that enables the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting any of the first objects, and allows the own vehicle to pass through an area occupied by one or more of the second objects.
Nevertheless, Tsujino teaches: wherein based upon a determination that there is no route that allows an own vehicle to reach a target position without contacting all of first objects and any of second objects, a processor is configured to set a target route as a route that enables the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting any of the first objects, and allows the own vehicle to pass through an area occupied by one or more of the second objects (“The parking space 101 that is classified as being of the degree of obstruction B has the obstruction 111 (a puddle) therein regarded as a small inhibitory factor, and is classified and determined to be a parking space in which, although not recommended, parking is possible.” See at least ¶ 5. Continuing, it may be determined that a parking space 101 has an “inhibitory factor” – see at least ¶ 62 and FIG. 2. “In the case that the user has not changed the selection of the parking space 101 in step S9 despite the caution [of the inhibitory factor], then in step S10, as shown in FIG. 6, the target trajectory calculation unit 58 calculates target trajectories … from the current position of the host vehicle 10 until entry into the parking space 101, based on the selected parking space 101, the positions of the obstructions 112 and 116, … and executes an automated driving control (automated parking control) for the host vehicle 10 along the calculated target trajectories 120, 121, and 122, and causes the host vehicle 10 to move in a rearward direction into the parking space 101 and come to a stop.” See at least ¶ 63 and FIGS. 2 and 6. Examiner Note: Summarizing, if there is no route which allows a vehicle to reach a target parking position (101) without avoiding at least a second object (111), a processor may set a target route which enables the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting a first object (112) while allowing the own vehicle to pass through an area occupied by one or more of the second objects.).
Kiyokawa discloses: a parking assistance device for assisting an own vehicle to park in a parking spot, comprising: a surrounding sensor, a processor which executes parking assistance control by at least automatically moving an own vehicle along a target route to reach a target position, wherein the processor is configured to set a target route as one which does not make contact with first objects, which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, and second objects, which are unclear whether or not they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Shimizu teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a first threshold as first objects which obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Indoh teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a second threshold but lower than a first threshold as objects which are unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Tsujino teaches: setting a target route as a route that enables the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting all of first objects, and allows the own vehicle to pass through an area occupied by one or more of the second objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh to include the feature of: wherein based upon a determination that there is no route that allows an own vehicle to reach a target position without contacting all of first objects and any of second objects, a processor is configured to set a target route as a route that enables the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting any of the first objects, and allows the own vehicle to pass through an area occupied by one or more of the second objects, as taught by Tsujino, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “providing an automated parking device and an automated parking method, in which it is possible to expand a scene in which parking is enabled in parking spaces, without excessively limiting the parking spaces due to the presence of obstructions therein.” (Tsujino, ¶ 5.)
As to claim 3, Kiyokawa discloses: a display that presents information to the occupant of the own vehicle (Display device 8 – see at least ¶ 27 and FIG. 4.).
The combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh fails to explicitly disclose: presenting information indicating that the own vehicle is expected to pass through an area occupied by the second objects.
Nevertheless, Tsujino teaches: a display that presents information indicating that the own vehicle is expected to pass through an area occupied by the second objects to the occupant of the own vehicle (“FIG. 5 is a schematic view in which there is shown, on the display unit 40 b, a plan view image (partially including a still image obtained from a video image) 80A of the parking lot” – see at least ¶ 56 and FIG. 5. See also ¶¶ 57–59 in reference to FIG> 5 which discusses parking frames which classify a parking space as impossible, possible and caution in reference to the presence of a first object, no object and a second object, respectively.).
Kiyokawa discloses: a parking assistance device for assisting an own vehicle to park in a parking spot, comprising: a surrounding sensor, a processor which executes parking assistance control by at least automatically moving an own vehicle along a target route to reach a target position, wherein the processor is configured to set a target route as one which does not make contact with first objects, which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, and second objects, which are unclear whether or not they obstruct progress of the own vehicle; and a display that presents information to the occupant of the own vehicle. Shimizu teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a first threshold as first objects which obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Indoh teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a second threshold but lower than a first threshold as objects which are unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Tsujino teaches: setting a target route as a route that enables the own vehicle to reach the target position without contacting all of first objects, and allows the own vehicle to pass through an area occupied by one or more of the second objects; and a display that presents information indicating that the own vehicle is expected to pass through an area occupied by the second objects to the occupant of the own vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh to include the feature of: a display that presents information indicating that the own vehicle is expected to pass through an area occupied by the second objects to the occupant of the own vehicle, as taught by Tsujino, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for alerting a driver as to a parking space which contains a second object, thereby enhancing safety and user satisfaction. (See, e.g., at least Tsujino, ¶ 62.)
Claim 4 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa in view of Shimizu and in view of Indoh as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Mori (US20160280263A1; “Mori”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh fails to explicitly disclose: the processor is configured to set the target position based on the front end position of another vehicle parked adjacent to the parking spot when the other vehicle is parked parallel to the own vehicle.
Nevertheless, Mori teaches: a processor is configured to set a target position based on the front end position of another vehicle parked adjacent to a parking spot when the other vehicle is parked parallel to the own vehicle (“The corner detecting unit 312 uses the reflection-point position information of each of the parked vehicle A and the parked vehicle B to estimate the corner position of the parked vehicle A as a corner A and the corner position of the parked vehicle B as a corner B.” See at least ¶ 89 and FIGS. 4 and 5. Continuing, “In Step S106, the parking-space estimating unit 313 estimates the parking-space information from the corner positions estimated by the corner detecting unit 312.” See at least ¶ 90 and FIGS. 4 and 5. Examiner note: The corner positions of the parked vehicles represent the front ends of the parked vehicles as illustrated in FIG. 5. ).
Kiyokawa discloses: a parking assistance device for assisting an own vehicle to park in a parking spot, comprising: a surrounding sensor, a processor which executes parking assistance control by at least automatically moving an own vehicle along a target route to reach a target position, wherein the processor is configured to set a target route as one which does not make contact with first objects, which obstruct progress of the own vehicle, and second objects, which are unclear whether or not they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Shimizu teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a first threshold as first objects which obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Indoh teaches: identifying objects which have a height greater than a second threshold but lower than a first threshold as objects which are unclear as to whether they obstruct progress of the own vehicle. Mori teaches: setting a target position based on the front end position of another vehicle parked adjacent to a parking spot when the other vehicle is parked parallel to the own vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kiyokawa, Shimizu and Indoh to include the feature of: a processor is configured to set a target position based on the front end position of another vehicle parked adjacent to a parking spot when the other vehicle is parked parallel to the own vehicle, as taught by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “appropriately guiding a self-vehicle into a parking space.” (Mori, ¶ 17.)
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668