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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112 rejections have been overcome or withdrawn.
As to the 101, the arguments directed do not remove it from the abstract idea of determining an indication based on distance. The sensor input is pre solution activity. The indicators are post solution activity. Where the determination is using a generic computer components (processor) all the components are used in their typical methodology (collect data- sensor, process- processor, indicator – light upon the processor determination). See rejection below for the individual steps. Of note “to cause” is not controlling. Applicant should consider having the indicator being controlled by the processor.
As to the 102 rejection and the arguments around that (Applicant’s response section 3) relating to the claim language “the processor being programmed to cause the indicator to present a continue motion signal when the distance of the vehicle from the line or the obstacle is greater than a threshold distance” The example in 0056 explicitly discloses when the gap in a parking spot is longer than the vehicle. That with the wording of “continuing” in 0030 disclose providing visual indicators to distance for both short distances and long distances.
The remaining arguments are based on the dependence of argued allowable language of section 3.
Given the above reasoning the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
As to claim 1-20 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (Process claims 14-20 and apparatus for claim 1-13).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A parking assistance system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor;
a proximity sensor module operably coupled to the processor, the proximity sensor module configured to detect a distance of the vehicle from a line on a driving surface or an obstacle; and
an indicator operably coupled to the processor, the processor being programmed to cause the indicator to present a continue motion signal when the distance of the vehicle from the line or the obstacle is greater than a threshold distance, the processor being programmed to cause the indicator to present a stop motion signal when the distance of the vehicle from the line or the obstacle is equal to or less than the threshold distance.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” (in claim 14. In claim 1 the processor does those steps) in the context of this claim encompasses a person (navigator) looking at data collected (distance data) and forming a simple judgement (continue to move or not). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea – mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (vehicle) or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”) See above.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of “processor” that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Similar to collection of sensor data prior to a determination.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20180297506 A1 Stefan.
As to claim 1 and included method claim 14, Stephan discloses a parking assistance system for a vehicle [Stefan: abstract], the system comprising:
a processor [Stefan: 0009 “ranging unit can comprise, for example, a processor or microcontroller in the vehicle”];
a proximity sensor module [Stephan: #11 longer distance sensor device and/or #12 shorter-distance sensor device] operably coupled [Stephan: Fig. 3 arrows are connections] to the processor [Stephan: ranging unit #15 may include processor 0009], the proximity sensor module configured to detect a distance of the vehicle from a line on a driving surface or an obstacle [Stephan: 0052 “The vehicle 10 comprises a driving assistance system comprising two different distance sensor devices for determining distances between the vehicle 10 and obstacles possibly present”]; and
an indicator operably coupled to the processor [Stephan: 0003 “Driving assistance systems can have sensors for detecting the surroundings, and can give the driver information concerning the driving maneuver conducted by the driver, for example in the form of visual or acoustic signals.”], the processor being programmed to cause the indicator to present a continue motion signal when the distance of the vehicle from the line or the obstacle is greater than a threshold distance [Stephan: 0030, The thresholds being check using the logic described in 0056 and 0057. The driver assistance that indicates the distance with visual indicators can be used when the parking spot has a larger gap as the example in 0056 discloses “involves checking a driving-situation-related maneuvering criterion, for example whether the longer-distance information indicates that a distance threshold value has been undershot or that a parking gap is longer than the vehicle but undershoots a defined minimum size for normal operation” ], the processor being programmed to cause the indicator to present a stop motion signal when the distance of the vehicle from the line or the obstacle is equal to or less than the threshold distance [Stephan: 0030 “that even after the vehicle has entered the short-distance range, accurate distance information can continue to be provided, and is available in an automatic driving assistance system for the control of the vehicle or otherwise to the driver in the form of visual, . . . , such that a range extended at least by part of the short-distance range can be utilized for the maneuvering of the vehicle.” So visual indicators can provide information concerning a maneuver/parking when thresholds are met using the short range sensor to continue maneuvering and then to not continue maneuvering. The thresholds being check using the logic described in 0056 and 0057].
As to claim 5, claim 11, and claim 18 Stephan discloses wherein the proximity sensor module comprises a front sensor assembly and a rear sensor assembly [Stephan: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3], the processor being programmed to operate the indicator based on data from the front sensor assembly when the vehicle is being operated to move in a forward direction [Stephan: 0043 “… provision is made… for activating more sensors in those regions of the vehicle in which the distance to the obstacle will probably be the smallest at first. … during a parking maneuver in the direction of the roadway, for monitoring, … the corner region in the direction of travel of the vehicle with more sensors than the corner region facing the edge of the roadway in the direction of travel,” 0003 “Driving assistance systems can have sensors for detecting the surroundings, and can give the driver information concerning the driving maneuver conducted by the driver, for example in the form of visual or acoustic signals.”], the processor being programmed to operate the indicator based on data from the rear sensor assembly when the vehicle is being operated to move in a rearward direction [Stephan: Fig. 3, 0043 “for example during reverse parking in the longitudinal direction on the right-hand side of the roadway, during the first stage, for activating more sensors at the rear on the left and fewer sensors at the rear on the right” 0003 “Driving assistance systems can have sensors for detecting the surroundings, and can give the driver information concerning the driving maneuver conducted by the driver, for example in the form of visual or acoustic signals.”].
As to claim 6, Stephan discloses a vehicle comprising a parking assistance system [Stephan: Fig. 1] according to claim 1 [See claim 1 citation above].
As to claim 12, Stephan discloses wherein the front sensor assembly comprises a plurality of front sensor members spaced laterally across the front end of the body [Stephan: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3], the rear sensor assembly comprising a plurality of rear sensor members spaced laterally across a rear end of the body [Stephan: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3].
As to claim 19, Stephan discloses wherein the front sensor assembly is positioned on a front end of a body of the vehicle, the rear sensor assembly being positioned on a rear end of the body [Stephan: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3].
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2-4, 7-9, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 2, claim 7, and claim 15, wherein the indicator comprises a light source [Stephan: 0003 “Driving assistance systems can have sensors for detecting the surroundings, and can give the driver information concerning the driving maneuver conducted by the driver, for example in the form of visual or acoustic signals.” A visual indicator to a driver in a vehicle includes light sources.]. Examiner takes official notice that within a vehicle environment a visual indicator is known to include light sources and example of this includes obstacle avoidance indicators like lane change warnings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the visual indicator of Stephan a light indicator as taken in Official Notice as it merely uses a known device (an indicator light in an obstacle detection system) in a known way (Stephan discloses visual indication being guidance for a driver on maneuver distance to an obstacle) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of providing guidance to the driver.
As to claim 3, claim 8, and claim 16, Stephan discloses visual indicators, but is silent on them being a particular color. However, examiner is taking official notice that it is well known to associate a green light with the signal to continue motion in a vehicle as evidenced by traffic lights using the same color meaning. Official notice is taken that the continue motion signal comprises a green light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the visual indicator of Stephan to use green light to indicate continue motion as take as Official Notice as it merely uses a known device (a visual indicator of green to mean continue motion) in a known way (Stephan discloses visual indication being guidance for a driver on maneuver distance to an obstacle) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of using user known symbology.
As to claim 4, claim 9, and claim 17 Stephan discloses visual indicators, but is silent on them being a particular color. However, examiner is taking official notice that it is well known to associate a red light with the signal to stop motion in a vehicle as evidenced by traffic lights using the same color meaning. Official notice is taken that wherein the stop motion signal comprises a red light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the visual indicator of Stephan to use red light to indicate stop motion as take as Official Notice as it merely uses a known device (a visual indicator of red to mean stop motion) in a known way (Stephan discloses visual indication being guidance for a driver on maneuver distance to an obstacle) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of using user known symbology.
As to claim 13, Stephan does not disclose a battery powering a processor. However, Examiner takes official notice that powering processors in a vehicle environment with a battery is well known and routine. Official notice is taken that wherein the vehicle comprises a battery, the processor being electrically coupled to the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the processor of Stephan be powered by a battery in the vehicle as taken as official notice a this uses a known device ( the system disclosed in Stephan and a vehicle battery used to power a processor) in a known way (it is standard and common to use batteries to power processors in vehicles) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit standard convention.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of US 20060262550 A1 Pastrick.
As to claim 10, Stefan discloses that the indicators may be visual and provides that a vehicle environment, but does not explicitly disclose lights being on side mirrors of a vehicle. Pastrick discloses further comprising: a body having a pair of side-view mirrors [Pastrick: Fig. 11], each side-view mirror being positioned on a respective lateral side of a pair of lateral sides of the body [Pastrick: Fig. 11]; and wherein the light source is one of a pair of light sources of the indicator [Pastrick: Fig. 4 #32a, #32b, #30], each light source being mounted to a respective one of the pair of side-view mirrors[Pastrick: Fig. 4 #32a, #32b, #30], the processor being programmed to activate each light source of the pair of light sources when operating the indicator[Stephan: Fig. 3, 0043 “for example during reverse parking in the longitudinal direction on the right-hand side of the roadway, during the first stage, for activating more sensors at the rear on the left and fewer sensors at the rear on the right” 0003 “Driving assistance systems can have sensors for detecting the surroundings, and can give the driver information concerning the driving maneuver conducted by the driver, for example in the form of visual or acoustic signals.”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the physical configuration of visual indicators of Stephan to be side mirrors of Pastrick as it merely uses a known device (the vehicle of Stephan with mirrors of Pastrick) in a known way (using visual indicators as disclosed in Stephan) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of putting the indicators near a customary place to look when doing maneuvers of parking.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180334102 A1 a vehicle collision avoidance system has a camera disposed on a vehicle and arranged to monitor at least one collision prone region adjacent to the vehicle; a sensor positioned within the vehicle and arranged to determine a driver's head position relative to a designated point in the vehicle; a display disposed in view of the driver and coupled to the camera; and a controller configured to control operation of the sensor, the camera and the display. The controller activates the display and the camera to display the at least one collision prone region adjacent to the vehicle when the sensor detects that the driver's head is beyond a threshold distance from the designated point.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665