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 11/12/2025. Claims 1 & 3-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 14-18 are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 02/27/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 9, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bian et. al. (C.N. Publication No. 111,897,341 A).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 12
Bian discloses “A route generation device comprising at least one processor configured to implement: a surrounding environment information acquisition circuitry which acquires information about a surrounding environment around an own vehicle;” (See Bian Abstract and [0106] disclosing acquiring environment information and facilitating a processor to analyze the environmental information.).
Bian discloses “an own-vehicle position estimator which estimates an own-vehicle position;” (See Bian [0014] and Claim 3 disclosing , the environmental information includes vehicle position information, the environmental information acquired via a sensor, see Bian [0027].).
Bian discloses “a geometric route generator which generates a geometric route from a parking goal position to a connection point, using an expression representing a geometric shape of a route;” (See Bian [0109]-[0110] disclosing planning the parking path with a geometric algorithm, and a RS curve may be generated from a search point in one direction to a search point in another direction until the path is terminated (geometric shape).).
Bian discloses “a graph search route generator which generates a graph search route from a parking start position to the connection point, using a graph search algorithm for searching for a route using a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges connecting the nodes;” (See Bian [0109]-[0110] disclosing planning the parking path with a graph search algorithm including a dynamic programming algorithm is used to calculate the shortest path from each node of multiple nodes to an end point.).
Bian discloses “and a route combination circuitry which generates a parking route from the parking start position to the parking goal position in a parking space by combining the geometric route and the graph search route.” (See Bian [0109] disclosing combing a geometric algorithm and a graph search algorithm for parking path planning. Also see Bian [0105] disclosing a processor provided for executing the parking path planning.).
Regarding claim 9
Bian discloses “A parking assistance system comprising: the route generation device according to claim 1;” (See Bian [0105] disclosing a processor configured to execute the parking path planning.).
Bian discloses “and a vehicle control device which parks the own vehicle on the basis of the parking route generated by the route generation device.” (See Bian [0074] disclosing parking of the vehicle automatically according to the planned path.).
Regarding claim 16
Bian discloses “The route generation device according to claim 1, wherein: the geometric route generator generates the geometric route as an evaluation function minimizing route that minimizes an evaluation function.” (See Bian [0016] disclosing the route search minimizes a cost function. The route search including a geometric route, see Bian [0109]-[0110].).
Regarding claim 18
Bian discloses “The route generation device according to claim 1, wherein: the graph search route generator uses a bidirectional graph search algorithm by connecting an initial tree composed of the plurality of the nodes and the plurality of the edges for heading toward the connection point from the parking start position, and a goal tree composed of a plurality of the nodes and a plurality of the edges for heading toward the parking start position from the connection point.” (Bian Fig. 9, [0055]-[0057], [0127]-[0128], & [0141]-[0142] discloses that the search is bi-directional from a starting point to an end point).
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.
Claims 15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian et. al. (C.N. Publication No. 111,897,341 A) in view of Maekawa et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0076640).
Regarding claim 15
Bian discloses “The route generation device according to claim 1,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein: the geometric route is formed by a combination of at least one of a straight line, a clothoid curve, an arc curve, or a polynomial curve.”.
Maekawa discloses “wherein: the geometric route is formed by a combination of at least one of a straight line, a clothoid curve, an arc curve, or a polynomial curve.” (See Maekawa [0035] disclosing a route generating method using a clothoid curve.).
Bian and Maekawa are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the art of the claimed invention. 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 Bian to incorporate the teachings of Maekawa to include forming geometric vehicle routes including a clothoid curve. Doing so provides a known route generation technique in the art, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously provides a method of generating a travel route while minimizing a cost associated with travel of an autonomous vehicle operation, see Maekawa [0033].
Regarding claim 17
Bian discloses “The route generation device according to claim 16,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein: the evaluation function is based on a curvature of the geometric route and a weight coefficient for each turnabout.”.
Maekawa discloses “wherein: the evaluation function is based on a curvature of the geometric route and a weight coefficient for each turnabout.” (See Maekawa [0166] & [0227] disclosing a cost function for a route based on a curvature and including weighting constraints.).
Bian and Maekawa are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the art of the claimed invention. 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 Bian to incorporate the teachings of Maekawa to include forming geometric vehicle routes with a cost function in consideration of a curvature and weighting constraint. Doing so provides a known route generation technique in the art, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously provides a method of generating a travel route while minimizing a cost associated with travel of an autonomous vehicle operation, see Maekawa [0033].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to P. 8-9 of remarks filed directed to claims 1 and 12
Bian discloses “a geometric route generator which generates a geometric route from a parking goal position to a connection point, using an expression representing a geometric shape of a route;” (See Bian [0109]-[0110] disclosing planning the parking path with a geometric algorithm, and a RS curve may be generated from a search point in one direction to a search point in another direction until the path is terminated (geometric shape).), & Bian discloses “a graph search route generator which generates a graph search route from a parking start position to the connection point, using a graph search algorithm for searching for a route using a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges connecting the nodes;” (See Bian [0109]-[0110] disclosing planning the parking path with a graph search algorithm including a dynamic programming algorithm is used to calculate the shortest path from each node of multiple nodes to an end point.).
Examiner agrees that the claims as recited, “requires two different types routes be generated for two different, predefined segments of the overall parking path before being combined.” However, Bian Fig. 9, [0055]-[0057], [0127]-[0128], & [0141]-[0142] discloses that the search is bi-directional from a starting point to an end point, provided with a hybrid algorithm used to search for the path from the starting point and the end point simultaneously to shorten the algorithm execution time, reduce the number of searched nodes, and reduce the workload of the algorithm.
That is, Bian discloses the search is conducted with both of a geometric and graph search, from a starting point and an end point simultaneously, before merging the searched paths (see Bian [0141]), thus a path including a geometric route is searched from a parking goal position to a connection point and a path including a graph search is searched from a start position to a connection point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10-11 and 13 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.
Regarding The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3 and similarly with respect to claims 4-5, 8, 10 and 13
The closest prior art does not reasonably disclose the parking route generation device or method as specifically recited in the claims, nor are these limitations rendered obvious in view of the art of record.
Bian for example discloses calculating a sum of the first distance and the shortest path distance of a node and determining the minimum value between the sum and the shortest path distance, whereas the claims of the instant application are directed to calculating evaluation indices of respective routes (route cost vs node cost).
Bian for example discloses if either of the first or second path form an RS curve, then the search may be terminated, whereas the claims in the instant application are directed to performing the graph search when the geometric search cannot be executed.
Bian for example discloses the combination of a geometric search and a graph search for a parking path, however the specific method of combining the nodes in the search as recited in claims 5 and 13 are not disclosed.
Bian for example discloses obstacle mitigation in the parking path, which may correspond to a change in a surrounding environment, however does not teach adapting for situations where the geometric search or the graph search cannot be executed.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are objected to on the basis of dependency.
Claim 14 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 14
The recitation “wherein in a case where the geometric route generator is unable to generate the geometric route, the graph search route generator generates the parking route from the parking start position to the parking goal position, as the graph search route.” Overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods discloses in the closest prior art, Bian et. al. (C.N. Publication No. 111,897,341 A). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to providing a graph search route generator as an independent route generator in the event a geometric route generator is unable to generate a geometric route. For example, Bian discloses each of geometric and graph searches, provided for generating a parking route, including a bidirectional search performed simultaneously from a start position and an end position, however performing the search with the graph search algorithm independent of the geometric search, from a start position to a goal position, when the geometric search fails, is neither disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claim is therefore allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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