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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 08/12/2025 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 4 page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without additional information as to how the steering wheel angle is compared to the vehicle speed, given the two different parameters use different units of measurement, which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Due to the indefinite language analysis of claim 6, consideration of claim 6 under prior art is not possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are directed to the comparison of a vehicle’s steering wheel angle and speed. With regards to the indefinite language analysis of claim 6, although the claim language is found in Paragraph 10 in the specification, Applicant fails to include additional information as to how the two different parameters with different unit of measurements are compared with each other. Finally, because of the indefinite nature of the claim, it is not possible to analyze Claim 6 based on prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "a module configured to…”, “a parking lot module configured to …”, “an enabling/disabling module configured to: …”, “a confidence module configured to …”, and “a perception module is configured to …” in Claims 1-19.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raybuck et. al. (DE 102018108629 with publishing date 10/18/2018 - IDS) in view of Weiss et. al. (US 20230314157) in further view of Lee et. al. (DE 112020000369 with publishing date 10/21/2021),
Consider Claim 1, Raybuck teaches “A system for a vehicle, comprising: a module configured to, when enabled, selectively perform a vehicle feature;” (Raybuck; [0063]; “An activation / deactivation module 356 activates and deactivates the parking module 332…”) “a parking lot module configured to determine and indicate whether the vehicle is presently in a parking lot (Raybuck; Abstract; “A parking module is configured to selectively generate a parking signal…”) “based on at least two of: a present vehicle speed of the vehicle;” (Raybuck; Abstract; “a vehicle speed is less than a predetermined speed…”) “a steering wheel angle of the vehicle;” (Raybuck; Abstract; “and at least one of the following is true:… (iii) a magnitude of a steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle.” ) “(Raybuck; [0063]; “An activation / deactivation module 356 activates and deactivates the parking module 332 , The activation / deactivation module 356 deactivates the parking module 332 if one or more conditions are met indicating that the vehicle is on a road and not in a parking lot.”).
Raybuck does not explicitly disclose “a gaze of a driver of the vehicle”. However, in analogous field of endeavor, Weiss teaches “a gaze of a driver of the vehicle” (Weiss; Abstract; “a driver monitoring system adapted to track the position of the driver ' s eye, and a controller … the controller is adapted to determine if the vehicle is performing a parking maneuver…”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Raybuck with the teachings of Weiss to further determine the driver’s intention to perform a parking operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Raybuck and Weiss to determine the driver’s intention to park a vehicle to further confirm a vehicle is in a parking lot environment. Accordingly, the combination of Raybuck and Weiss teaches the disclosed above-described limitations of Claim 1.
The combination of Raybuck and Weise does not explicitly disclose “a confidence value corresponding to a confidence that the vehicle is in a parking lot;”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches “a confidence value corresponding to a confidence that the vehicle is in a parking lot;” (Lee; Summary; “…the confidence value generator can 110 a confidence value 116 generate or determine which predicts a probability that a respective corner point (s) corresponds to a detected entrance to a parking lot…”) “and a parking space confidence value corresponding to a confidence that a perception module has detected a parking space around the vehicle;” (Lee; 5th page, 4th paragraph; “The object detector 106 can be configured to analyze input data, such as sensor data and / or image data representing any number of parking spaces (or no parking spaces) identified by the communication manager 104 and generate object detection data representing any number of detected objects detected in the input data. The object detector can do this 106 the feature determiner 108 , the displacement value generator 112 and the confidence value generator 110…”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Raybuck and Weiss with the teachings of Lee to further generate confidence values associated with a vehicle surroundings to determine if a vehicle is in a parking lot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee to detect features of a parking lot and parking spaces to increase the overall confidence in the evaluation of a vehicle’s surrounding environment. Accordingly, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee discloses the invention of Claim 1.
Consider Claim 2, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to selectively determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when the present vehicle speed of the vehicle is within a predetermined speed range.” (Raybuck; [0031]; “According to the present application, the infotainment module displays the surround view video when the vehicle speed is less than a second predetermined speed (greater than the first predetermined speed)”).
Consider Claim 3, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 2 wherein the parking lot module is configured to determine and indicate that the vehicle is not presently in a parking lot when the present vehicle speed of the vehicle is outside of the predetermined speed range.” (Raybuck; [0031]; “According to the present application, the infotainment module displays the surround view video when the vehicle speed is less than a second predetermined speed (greater than the first predetermined speed)”; Examiner notes Raybuck teaches an infoainment module that displays a video of surrounding view when the vehicle speed threshold is satisfied and does not display the surround view when the vehicle speed threshold is NOT satisfied. Therefore, examiner interprets the lack of surround view display to be in indication that the vehicle is not in a parking lot.)
Consider Claim 4, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to selectively determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when the steering wheel angle of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle.” (Raybuck; [Abstract]; “(iii) a magnitude of a steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle.”).
Consider Claim 5, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 4 wherein the parking lot module is configured to selectively determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when the steering wheel angle of the vehicle has been greater than the predetermined steering wheel angle within a past predetermined period.” (Raybuck; [0056-0057]; “the parking module 332 determine that the vehicle is parked (and the parking signal 336 set to the first state) when the vehicle speed 340 is greater than zero and less than a predetermined speed for a predetermined period of time and at least one of: …(iii) an order of magnitude of the SWA 142 is greater than a predetermined SWA….If it is activated, the parking module can 332 one from a timer module 344 incremented timer value (corresponding to a time period) for each control loop when the vehicle speed is less than the predetermined speed and at least one of (i) - (iv) is satisfied….The parking module 332 can also reset the timer value when the parking module 332 is disabled and / or if the parking module 332 goes from disabled to enabled.”; Examiner notes the timer loop module associated the parking module once the vehicle speed threshold has been satisfied is interpreted as the predetermined period of time in which the steering wheel angle threshold must satisfied to determine surrounding status of the vehicle.)
Consider Claim 9, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to selectively determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when the confidence value is greater than a predetermined value.” (Lee; 9th page, 1st Paragraph; “For example, the object detection system 100 the confidence value 514 compare each anchor field with a threshold value. A positive detection can result for an anchor field if the confidence value 514 is greater than the threshold, and negative detection may result if the confidence value is less than the threshold.” (emphasis added)). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee references presented in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 9 is met by combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee.
Consider Claim 10, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 9 wherein the parking lot module is configured to determine and indicate that the vehicle is not presently in a parking lot when the confidence value is less than the predetermined value.” (Lee; 9th page, 1st paragraph; “For example, the object detection system 100 the confidence value 514 compare each anchor field with a threshold value. A positive detection can result for an anchor field if the confidence value 514 is greater than the threshold, and negative detection may result if the confidence value is less than the threshold.” (emphasis added)). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee references presented in the rejection of claim 9, apply to claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 10 is met by combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee.
Consider Claim 15, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to selectively determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when the parking space confidence value is greater than a predetermined value.” (Lee; 5th page, 4th paragraph; “ The object detector 106 can be configured to analyze input data, such as sensor data and / or image data representing any number of parking spaces (or no parking spaces) identified by the communication manager 104 and generate object detection data representing any number of detected objects detected in the input data. The object detector can do this 106 the feature determiner 108 , the displacement value generator 112 and the confidence value generator 110 use…. The confidence value generator 110 can be configured to have a confidence value 118 one or more anchor fields based on data from the feature determiner 108 to generate or determine.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee references presented in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 15 is met by the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee.
Consider Claim 16, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 15 further comprising a perception module configured to detect parking spaces based on images captured using cameras of the vehicle” (Lee; 2nd page, 2nd paragraph “For example, autonomous vehicles (e.g. vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS)) or drones can analyze image data in real time (e.g. depicting images of a street and / or a parking lot taken by a camera)…”) “and to set the parking space confidence value based on a number of parking spaces detected.” (Lee; 5th page, 4th paragraph “ The object detector 106 can be configured to analyze input data, such as sensor data and / or image data representing any number of parking spaces (or no parking spaces) identified by the communication manager 104 and generate object detection data representing any number of detected objects detected in the input data. The object detector can do this 106 the feature determiner 108 , the displacement value generator 112 and the confidence value generator 110 use….The confidence value generator 110 can be configured to have a confidence value 118 one or more anchor fields based on data from the feature determiner 108 to generate or determine.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee references presented in the rejection of claim 15, apply to claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 16 is met by combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee.
Consider Claim 20, Claim 20 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raybuck et. al. (DE 102018108629 with publishing date 10/18/2018 - IDS) in view of Weiss et. al. (US 20230314157) in further view of Lee et. al. (DE 112020000369 with publishing date 10/21/2021) and in further view of Micks et. al. (US 20170131719).
Consider Claim 7, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to selectively determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot (Weiss; Abstract; “a driver monitoring system adapted to track the position of the driver ' s eye, and a controller … the controller is adapted to determine if the vehicle is performing a parking maneuver…”).
The combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee does not explicitly disclose “when the gaze of the driver has been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle.”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Micks teaches “when the gaze of the driver has been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle.” (Micks; [0067]; In one embodiment, the database or model may correlate future vehicle movements with … a gaze direction of the driver for a threshold period of time (such as when a driver is staring at another vehicle waiting for that vehicle to go or when a driver stares straight ahead to being or continue to drive forward, a series of head movements, and a series of quick changes in gaze direction (e.g., checking cross traffic))” (emphasis added); Examiner notes “a series of quick changes in gaze direction (e.g., checking cross traffic)” is interpreted at left and right gaze direction of the forward direction.). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee with the teachings of Micks to further distinguish the gaze direction of the driver to further determine the vehicle’s surrounding environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks to determine if the driver has looked right or left of the forward direction of the vehicle as an indication of the intent to park a vehicle or the act of looking for a parking space in a parking lot environment. Accordingly, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks discloses the invention of Claim 7.
Consider Claim 8, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks teaches “The system of claim 7 wherein the parking lot module is configured to determine and indicate that the vehicle is not presently in a parking lot when the gaze of the driver has not been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle within a past predetermined period.” (Micks; [0067]; “a gaze direction of the driver for a threshold period of time (such as when a driver is staring at another vehicle waiting for that vehicle to go or when a driver stares straight ahead to being or continue to drive forward…” (emphasis added)). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks references presented in the rejection of claim 7, apply to claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 8 is met by combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks.
Consider Claim 18, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when at least two of:” (Raybuck; Abstract; “ A parking module is configured to selectively generate a parking signal when, for at least a predetermined duration, a vehicle speed is less than a predetermined speed and at least one of: (iii) a magnitude of a steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle.” (emphasis added)) “the present vehicle speed of the vehicle is within a predetermined speed range;” (Raybuck; [0031]; “According to the present application, the infotainment module displays the surround view video when the vehicle speed is less than a second predetermined speed (greater than the first predetermined speed)”) “the steering wheel angle of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle;” (Raybuck; Abstract; “…(iii) a magnitude of a steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle.” ) “(Lee; Pg. 9, Para. 1; “For example, the object detection system 100 the confidence value 514 compare each anchor field with a threshold value. A positive detection can result for an anchor field if the confidence value 514 is greater than the threshold…”) “and the parking space confidence value is greater than a predetermined value.” (Lee; Pg. 6, Para. 1; “…a confidence value 118 generates or determines that predicts a probability that a respective anchor field corresponds to a parking space that is recorded in the input data….As a non-limiting example, the receipt determiner 126 define an input for each object detection generated by the distorted quadrilateral generator 114 is output by selecting a set of vertices of each distorted quadrilateral (e.g. two vertices) that have the highest confidence values 116 have (e.g., optionally requiring these confidence values 116 exceed a threshold).” (emphasis added)).
The combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee does not explicitly disclose “the gaze of the driver has been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle;”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Micks teaches “the gaze of the driver has been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle;” (Micks; [0067]; In one embodiment, the database or model may correlate future vehicle movements with … a gaze direction of the driver for a threshold period of time (such as when a driver is staring at another vehicle waiting for that vehicle to go or when a driver stares straight ahead to being or continue to drive forward, a series of head movements, and a series of quick changes in gaze direction (e.g., checking cross traffic))” (emphasis added); Examiner notes “a series of quick changes in gaze direction (e.g., checking cross traffic)” is interpreted as a left and right gaze direction change from the forward direction.). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee with the teachings of Micks to further distinguish the gaze direction of the driver to further determine the vehicle’s surrounding environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks to determine if the driver has looked right or left of the forward direction of the vehicle as an indication of the intent to park a vehicle or the act of looking for a parking space in a parking lot environment. Accordingly, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks discloses the invention of Claim 18.
Consider Claim 19, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee teaches “The system of claim 1 wherein the parking lot module is configured to determine and indicate that the vehicle is presently in a parking lot when all of:” (Examiner notes that each threshold is used in the determination of the status of vehicle and the combination of the thresholds, as taught in the prior art analysis of Claim 18, can be used to determine whether a vehicle is a parking lot. Examiner notes the summation of all the disclosed thresholds would increase the confidence of a vehicle in a parking lot and would be obvious to one in the art to use the summation of all thresholds disclosed in the determination of a vehicle’s surrounding environment.) “the present vehicle speed of the vehicle is within a predetermined speed range;” (Raybuck; Abstract; “According to the present application, the infotainment module displays the surround view video when the vehicle speed is less than a second predetermined speed (greater than the first predetermined speed)”) “the steering wheel angle of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle;” (Raybuck; Abstract; “…(iii) a magnitude of a steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined steering wheel angle.” ) “(Lee; 9th page, 1st paragraph “For example, the object detection system 100 the confidence value 514 compare each anchor field with a threshold value. A positive detection can result for an anchor field if the confidence value 514 is greater than the threshold…”) “and the parking space confidence value is greater than a predetermined value.” (Lee; 6th page, 1st paragraph “…a confidence value 118 generates or determines that predicts a probability that a respective anchor field corresponds to a parking space that is recorded in the input data….As a non-limiting example, the receipt determiner 126 define an input for each object detection generated by the distorted quadrilateral generator 114 is output by selecting a set of vertices of each distorted quadrilateral (e.g. two vertices) that have the highest confidence values 116 have (e.g., optionally requiring these confidence values 116 exceed a threshold).” (emphasis added)).
The combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee does not explicitly disclose “the gaze of the driver has been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle;”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Micks teaches “the gaze of the driver has been left or right of a forward direction of travel of the vehicle;” (Micks; [0067]; In one embodiment, the database or model may correlate future vehicle movements with … a gaze direction of the driver for a threshold period of time (such as when a driver is staring at another vehicle waiting for that vehicle to go or when a driver stares straight ahead to being or continue to drive forward, a series of head movements, and a series of quick changes in gaze direction (e.g., checking cross traffic))” (emphasis added); Examiner notes “a series of quick changes in gaze direction (e.g., checking cross traffic)” is interpreted as a left and right gaze direction change from the forward direction.). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee with the teachings of Micks to further distinguish the gaze direction of the driver to further determine the vehicle’s surrounding environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks to determine if the driver has looked right or left of the forward direction of the vehicle as an indication of the intent to park a vehicle or the act of looking for a parking space in a parking lot environment. Accordingly, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Micks discloses the invention of Claim 19.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raybuck et. al. (DE 102018108629 with publishing date 10/18/2018 - IDS ) in view of Weiss et. al. (US 20230314157) in further view of Lee et. al. (DE 112020000369 with publishing date 10/21/2021) and in further view of Pandita et. al. (US 20150325127)
Consider Claim 13, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee does not explicitly disclose “The system of claim 9 further comprising a confidence module configured to determine the confidence value based on a number of lane lines detected in front of the vehicle, the lane lines dividing lanes of vehicle traffic.”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Pandita teaches "uses one of the sensors or map data for determining the number of lanes in the roadway … and generates a lane identification confidence belief … based on any detected lane crossings, the number of lanes in the roadway…at the instantaneous position of the vehicle in the roadway." (Pandita; [0012]). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Raybuck, Weiss, and Lee with the teachings of Pandita to further detect the number of traffic lanes in front of a vehicle when determining the vehicle environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Pandita to generate a confidence value based on the number of traffic lanes in front of a vehicle to distinguish between a vehicle on a road and in a parking lot. Accordingly, the combination of Raybuck, Weiss, Lee, and Pandita disclose the invention of Claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in Claims 11, 12, 14, and 17 with the limitations of claims they depend from.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Annie Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-1673. The examiner can be normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00a – 5:00p.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/ANNIE H PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights