SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO FACILITATE VEHICLE PARKING

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 Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending in this application. Claims 4-5 are cancelled. Claims 1, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are presented for examination. Response to Amendments 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries 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. 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, 6, 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Max et al. (US Publication 2021/0284131 A1) and in further view of Dasher et al. (US Publication 2025/0242798 A1). Regarding claim 1, Terai teaches a vehicle comprising: a sensor unit configured to capture sensor inputs associated with the vehicle's surroundings (Terai: Para. 22; detector detects an object around the parking space when automatic parking of vehicle is performed); and a processor communicatively coupled with the sensor unit, wherein the processor is configured to: (Terai: Para. 22; detector outputs detection object information indicating a feature and/or a position of the detection object to information processing apparatus) obtain, at a first time before a first parking operation at a predefined location at which a user regularly parks the vehicle, a user configuration request associated with the predefined location, the user configuration request comprising (Terai: Para. 19, 54, Fig. 3; parking space include a parking space of a home, car sharing, or the like where vehicle is repeatedly parked; flowchart illustrated in FIG. 3 starts when vehicle is present in a predetermined position around the parking space and an operation for execution direction of automatic parking is performed by the user of vehicle): geo-coordinates associated with the predefined location (Terai: Para. 136; determining whether vehicle is around the parking space may be a method of comparing the position information obtained by an in-vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver and the preset position information around the parking space); ………. ; determine a presence of the object in proximity to the predefined vehicle portion based on the sensor inputs (Terai: Para. 21, 126; detector is an in-vehicle sensor (e.g., a camera, a sonar, an LiDAR, and/or the like) that detects an object around vehicle), responsive to activating the parking assist feature (Terai: Para. 34; receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking e.g., pressing of a button by the user of vehicle); determine a distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object based on the sensor inputs (Terai: Para. 126; display an image indicating the position of the undetected object with respect to the position of vehicle; display the distance from vehicle to the undetected object in the image). Terai doesn’t explicitly teach an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location; a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object. However Max, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location; a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) with a reasonable expectation of success because an increased distance from a wall would be necessary for a physical handicap and implemented by personalized parking requirement (Max: Para. 38-39). Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location; activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request; determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location; automatically activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time ………… perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 9-10; determine the state of the easy access mode based on user input; the system receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination); activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request (Dasher: Para. 9-10; determine the state of the easy access mode based on user input; the system receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination); determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 50, 54-55; the vehicle is positioned on or over the right side line of the parking spot); automatically activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time (Dasher: Para. 54-55, 57; the vehicle may be positioned a distance from the car that allows access to the right side of the car, which favors providing access to a driver to the car over access to a non-driving passenger to the truck; vehicle follows a trajectory when repositioning; the distance d2 centers the vehicle between the left and right lines of the parking spot) ………… perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance (Dasher: Para. 50-51; positioning the vehicle a distance of 0.5 feet from the right side line of the parking spot; control circuitry alerts passengers to avoid exiting on the right side of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 6, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the predefined location is a current location of the vehicle when the processor obtains the user request (Terai: Para. 34; determination processing is performed, for example, when vehicle stops at a predetermined position). Regarding claim 9, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a memory configured to store the preset buffer distance, wherein the preset buffer distance is associated with the predefined location (Terai: Para. 49, 55; the distance between vehicle that is moving toward the parking space and the undetected object is shorter than a predetermined value; storage). Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: fetch the preset buffer distance from the memory responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location; compare the distance with the preset buffer distance; and perform the remedial action based on the comparison. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: fetch the preset buffer distance from the memory responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 48, 126; control circuitry processes the data from the sensors to identify boundaries of the parking spot; the easy access system positions the vehicle at a minimum predetermined distance from the adjacent vehicle); compare the distance with the preset buffer distance (Dasher: Para. 49; control circuitry determines a location of each passenger of the vehicle to determine which side of the vehicle the passengers will exit; determine how much distance each passenger will need to exit); and perform the remedial action based on the comparison (Dasher: Para. 50-51; positioning the vehicle a distance of 0.5 feet from the right side line of the parking spot; control circuitry alerts passengers to avoid exiting on the right side of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 10, Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach wherein the preset buffer distance is adjustable by a vehicle user via a user device or a vehicle Human-Machine Interface (HMI). However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preset buffer distance is adjustable by a vehicle user via a user device or a vehicle Human-Machine Interface (HMI) (Dasher: Para. 41; GUI; parking options include selection boxes for an “easy access mode” and a “car seat access” option; user may select a “confirm” button to confirm the selections). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 12, Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach wherein the processor performs the remedial action by autonomously stopping a vehicle movement when the distance is equivalent to the preset buffer distance. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor performs the remedial action by autonomously stopping a vehicle movement when the distance is equivalent to the preset buffer distance (Dasher: Para. 113; vehicle to self-drive into the parking spot while maintaining a standoff distance). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 14, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a predefined location image from the sensor unit (Terai: Para. 32; detection object information is acquired by detector and stored in storage every time vehicle is parked in the predetermined parking space; past detection object information is accumulated as learned information in storage). Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach determine predefined location dimensions based on the predefined location image; determine an optimal preset buffer distance based on the predefined location dimensions; and store information associated with the optimal preset buffer distance in a vehicle memory. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine predefined location dimensions based on the predefined location image (Dasher: Para. 48; control circuitry processes the data from the sensors to identify boundaries of the parking spot); determine an optimal preset buffer distance based on the predefined location dimensions (Dasher: Para. 49; control circuitry determines a location of each passenger of the vehicle to determine which side of the vehicle the passengers will exit; determine how much distance each passenger will need to exit); and store information associated with the optimal preset buffer distance in a vehicle memory (Dasher: Para. 49; data to user profiles or known characteristics of people stored in the non-transitory memory; identity of each passenger is used to determine the distance needed for each passenger to exit the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 15, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one of a vehicle camera, a Radio Detection and Ranging (radar) sensor, or a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) sensor, and wherein the sensor inputs comprise vehicle surrounding images (Terai: Para. 21; the sensors may implement a radar device, an array of radars, a sonar device, an array of sonars, a lidar device, an array of lidar devices). Regarding claim 16, Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach wherein the preset buffer distance is associated with a user desired minimum distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object at the predefined location. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preset buffer distance is associated with a user desired minimum distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 126; the minimum predetermined distance is a distance that ensures the vehicle does not contact the adjacent vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 18, Terai teaches a parking assist method comprising: obtaining, by a processor at a first time before a first parking operation at a predefined location at which a user regularly parks a vehicle, user configuration request associated with the predefined location, the user configuration request comprising: (Terai: Para. 19, 54, Fig. 3; parking space include a parking space of a home, car sharing, or the like where vehicle is repeatedly parked; flowchart illustrated in FIG. 3 starts when vehicle is present in a predetermined position around the parking space and an operation for execution direction of automatic parking is performed by the user of vehicle) geo-coordinates associated with the predefined location (Terai: Para. 136; determining whether vehicle is around the parking space may be a method of comparing the position information obtained by an in-vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver and the preset position information around the parking space); ………. ; determining, by the processor, a presence of the object in proximity to the predefined vehicle portion based on sensor inputs obtained from a sensor unit associated with the vehicle (Terai: Para. 21, 126; detector is an in-vehicle sensor (e.g., a camera, a sonar, an LiDAR, and/or the like) that detects an object around vehicle), responsive to activating the parking assist feature (Terai: Para. 34; receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking e.g., pressing of a button by the user of vehicle); determining, by the processor, a distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object based on the sensor inputs (Terai: Para. 126; display an image indicating the position of the undetected object with respect to the position of vehicle; display the distance from vehicle to the undetected object in the image). Terai doesn’t explicitly teach an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location; a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object. However Max, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location (Max: Para. 38-39, 58; driven from a starting point to the predetermined parking space without the transportation vehicle colliding with any, in particular, permanently present, obstacles in doing so; characteristics of the predetermined parking space; personal requirements; increased distance from an adjacent transportation vehicle or from a wall that is necessary because of a physical handicap); a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object (Max: Para. 39; defines a travel path and a stopping position (including the orientation of the transportation vehicle) on the predetermined parking space; personal requirements (for example, in the event of an increased distance from an adjacent transportation vehicle or from a wall that is necessary because of a physical handicap)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) with a reasonable expectation of success because an increased distance from a wall would be necessary for a physical handicap and implemented by personalized parking requirement (Max: Para. 38-39). Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location; activating, by the processor, the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request; determining, by the processor at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location; automatically activating, by the processor, the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time ……….. performing, by the processor, a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 9-10; determine the state of the easy access mode based on user input; the system receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination); activating, by the processor, the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request (Dasher: Para. 9-10; determine the state of the easy access mode based on user input; the system receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination); determining, by the processor at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 50, 54-55; the vehicle is positioned on or over the right side line of the parking spot); automatically activating, by the processor, the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time (Dasher: Para. 54-55, 57; the vehicle may be positioned a distance from the car that allows access to the right side of the car, which favors providing access to a driver to the car over access to a non-driving passenger to the truck; vehicle follows a trajectory when repositioning; the distance d2 centers the vehicle between the left and right lines of the parking spot) ……….. performing, by the processor, a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance (Dasher: Para. 50-51; positioning the vehicle a distance of 0.5 feet from the right side line of the parking spot; control circuitry alerts passengers to avoid exiting on the right side of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 19, Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach wherein the preset buffer distance is associated with the predefined location, and wherein the preset buffer distance is adjustable by a vehicle user via a user device or a vehicle Human-Machine Interface (HMI). However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preset buffer distance is associated with the predefined location, and wherein the preset buffer distance is adjustable by a vehicle user via a user device or a vehicle Human-Machine Interface (HMI) (Dasher: Para. 41; parking options include selection boxes for an “easy access mode” and a “car seat access” option; user may select a “confirm” button to confirm the selections). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Regarding claim 20, Terai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: obtain, at a first time before a first parking operation at a predefined location at which a user regularly parks a vehicle, a user configuration request associated with the predefined location, the user configuration request (Terai: Para. 19, 54, Fig. 3; parking space include a parking space of a home, car sharing, or the like where vehicle is repeatedly parked; flowchart illustrated in FIG. 3 starts when vehicle is present in a predetermined position around the parking space and an operation for execution direction of automatic parking is performed by the user of vehicle) comprising: geo-coordinates associated with the predefined location (Terai: Para. 136; determining whether vehicle is around the parking space may be a method of comparing the position information obtained by an in-vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver and the preset position information around the parking space); ……….. ; determine a presence of the object in proximity to the predefined vehicle portion based on sensor inputs obtained from a sensor unit associated with the vehicle (Terai: Para. 21, 126; detector is an in-vehicle sensor (e.g., a camera, a sonar, an LiDAR, and/or the like) that detects an object around vehicle), responsive to activating the parking assist feature (Terai: Para. 34; receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking e.g., pressing of a button by the user of vehicle); determine a distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object based on the sensor inputs, responsive to determining the presence of the object (Terai: Para. 126; display an image indicating the position of the undetected object with respect to the position of vehicle; display the distance from vehicle to the undetected object in the image). Terai doesn’t explicitly teach an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location; a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object. However Max, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location (Max: Para. 38-39, 58; driven from a starting point to the predetermined parking space without the transportation vehicle colliding with any, in particular, permanently present, obstacles in doing so; characteristics of the predetermined parking space; personal requirements; increased distance from an adjacent transportation vehicle or from a wall that is necessary because of a physical handicap); a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object (Max: Para. 39; defines a travel path and a stopping position (including the orientation of the transportation vehicle) on the predetermined parking space; personal requirements (for example, in the event of an increased distance from an adjacent transportation vehicle or from a wall that is necessary because of a physical handicap)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) with a reasonable expectation of success because an increased distance from a wall would be necessary for a physical handicap and implemented by personalized parking requirement (Max: Para. 38-39). Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location; activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request; determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location; automatically activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time ………. perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or approaching the preset buffer distance. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 9-10; determine the state of the easy access mode based on user input; the system receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination); activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request (Dasher: Para. 9-10; determine the state of the easy access mode based on user input; the system receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination); determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Dasher: Para. 50, 54-55; the vehicle is positioned on or over the right side line of the parking spot); automatically activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time (Dasher: Para. 54-55, 57; the vehicle may be positioned a distance from the car that allows access to the right side of the car, which favors providing access to a driver to the car over access to a non-driving passenger to the truck; vehicle follows a trajectory when repositioning; the distance d2 centers the vehicle between the left and right lines of the parking spot) ………. perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or approaching the preset buffer distance (Dasher: Para. 50-51; positioning the vehicle a distance of 0.5 feet from the right side line of the parking spot; control circuitry alerts passengers to avoid exiting on the right side of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Max et al. (US Publication 2021/0284131 A1), Dasher et al. (US Publication 2025/0242798 A1), and in further view of Rastoll et al. (US Publication 2020/0192352 A1). Regarding claim 2, Terai, Max, and Dasher don’t explicitly teach further comprising a telematics control unit (TCU) configured to determine a real-time vehicle geolocation, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the vehicle is located at the predefined location based on the real-time vehicle geolocation obtained from the TCU. However Rastoll, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a telematics control unit (TCU) configured to determine a real-time vehicle geolocation (Rastoll: Para. 27, 54; telematics control unit; information (e.g., an image and/or a geolocation) relating to the vehicle), wherein the processor is configured to determine that the vehicle is located at the predefined location based on the real-time vehicle geolocation obtained from the TCU (Rastoll: Para. 27, 54; telematics control unit; information (e.g., an image and/or a geolocation) relating to the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39), the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49), and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity to the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97). Regarding claim 3, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the real-time vehicle geolocation with the geo-coordinates associated with the predefined location (Terai: Para. 136; comparing the position information obtained by an in-vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver and the preset position information); and determine that the vehicle is located at the predefined location when the real-time vehicle geolocation matches with the geo-coordinates associated with the predefined location (Terai: Para. 136; determining whether vehicle is around the parking space may be a method of comparing the position information obtained by an in-vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver and the preset position information around the parking space). Regarding claim 7, Terai, Max, and Dasher don’t explicitly teach wherein the predefined location is a garage, wherein the object is at least one of a garage back wall, a garage front door or a garage front portion, and wherein the predefined vehicle portion is at least one of a vehicle front portion or a vehicle rear portion. However Rastoll, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the predefined location is a garage (Rastoll: Para. 3; outdoor parking lot), wherein the object is at least one of a garage back wall, a garage front door or a garage front portion (Rastoll: Para. 38; structural elements of a parking garage e.g., walls), and wherein the predefined vehicle portion is at least one of a vehicle front portion or a vehicle rear portion (Rastoll: Para. 62; a row of ultrasonic sensors may be located across the rear bumper, including the corners; radar sensors may be located on the rear fascia and bumper corners; and/or a LIDAR sensor may be located near the center of the rear bumper). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39), the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49), and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity to the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97). Regarding claim 8, Terai, Max, and Dasher don’t explicitly teach wherein the predefined location is a parking lot, wherein the object is a parking barrier or block disposed in the parking lot, and wherein the predefined vehicle portion is at least one of a vehicle front portion or a vehicle rear portion. However Rastoll, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the predefined location is a parking lot (Rastoll: Para. 3; outdoor parking lot), wherein the object is a parking barrier or block disposed in the parking lot (Rastoll: Para. 21; determining the distance between the vehicle and the concrete pylon), and wherein the predefined vehicle portion is at least one of a vehicle front portion or a vehicle rear portion (Rastoll: Para. 62; a row of ultrasonic sensors may be located across the rear bumper, including the corners; radar sensors may be located on the rear fascia and bumper corners; and/or a LIDAR sensor may be located near the center of the rear bumper). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39), the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49), and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity to the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97). Regarding claim 17, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a presence of an item in proximity to the object (Terai: Para. 21, 126; detector is an in-vehicle sensor (e.g., a camera, a sonar, an LiDAR, and/or the like) that detects an object around vehicle). Terai and Max don’t explicitly teach cause the vehicle to park in proximity to the object based on the optimal distance. However Dasher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cause the vehicle to park in proximity to the object based on the optimal distance (Dasher: Para. 48, 52; the control circuitry determines the safety distance based on a distance of the passengers, motion and movement direction of the passengers, the parking maneuvers to be performed; autopilot control circuitry to direct such control circuitry to drive the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39) and the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining how much distance each passenger will need to exit allows larger passengers or passengers having disabilities to exit, or to unload children from car seats or remove items stored in the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 49). Terai, Max, and Dasher don’t explicitly teach determine an optimal distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object based on the preset buffer distance and item dimensions. However Rastoll, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine an optimal distance between the predefined vehicle portion and the object based on the preset buffer distance and item dimensions (Rastoll: Para. 48, 110; images captured by a camera of the vehicle, where the images depict the parking space and/or an area around the parking space; position the vehicle as close as possible to the car based on the identified boundaries and positions). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39), the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49), and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity to the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Max et al. (US Publication 2021/0284131 A1), Dasher et al. (US Publication 2025/0242798 A1), and in further view of Green et al. (US Publication 2010/0201508 A1). Regarding claim 11, Terai teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor performs the remedial action by outputting an audio alert notification (Terai: Para. 49; the alarm may be output before vehicle starts to move toward the parking space, or may be output when the distance between vehicle that is moving toward the parking space and the undetected object is shorter than a predetermined value). Terai, Max, and Dasher don’t explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to adjust a sound pattern of the audio alert notification as the distance approaches the preset buffer distance. However Green, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to adjust a sound pattern of the audio alert notification as the distance approaches the preset buffer distance (Green: Para. 3; alerts can vary in frequency, volume, pattern, etc., in accordance with the detected distance between the rear of the vehicle and the obstacle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39), the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49), and distance dependent alert (Green: Para. 3) with a reasonable expectation of success because distance-based alert changes better notify the driver prior to a collision with the detected obstruction (Green: Para. 3). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Max et al. (US Publication 2021/0284131 A1), Dasher et al. (US Publication 2025/0242798 A1), and in further view of Kanesaka (US Publication 2025/0304039 A1). Regarding claim 13, Terai, Max, and Dasher don’t explicitly teach determine that a vehicle user has opened a vehicle door and a vehicle transmission is in a drive mode, responsive to autonomously stopping the vehicle movement; and output an alert notification responsive to determining that the vehicle user has opened the vehicle door and the vehicle transmission is in the drive mode. However Kanesaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine that a vehicle user has opened a vehicle door and a vehicle transmission is in a drive mode, responsive to autonomously stopping the vehicle movement (Kanesaka: Para. 60; the automatic parking is cancelled in a case where the user performs an operation of opening the door of the vehicle); and output an alert notification responsive to determining that the vehicle user has opened the vehicle door and the vehicle transmission is in the drive mode (Kanesaka: Para. 73; when the user performs the operation of opening the door while the vehicle is being moved to the parking position, the notification control unit notifies the means for interrupting the automatic parking of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the personalized wall buffer (Max: Para. 38-39), the adjustable distance needed (Dasher: Para. 49), and the interruption of automatic parking when the user opens a door (Kanesaka: Para. 60) with a reasonable expectation of success because stopping the vehicle when a user opens the door allows for safe egress of the user who cannot wait for the completion of the automatic parking (Kanesaka: Para. 67). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that claim 1’s “a processor communicatively coupled with the sensor unit, wherein the processor is configured to:" "obtain, at a first time before a first parking operation at a predefined location at which a user regularly parks the vehicle, a user configuration request associated with the predefined location, the user configuration request comprising:" "geo- coordinates associated with the predefined location;" "an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location;" "a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object;" and "an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location;" "activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the first parking operation based on the user configuration request;" "determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time and before a second parking operation subsequent to the first parking operation, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location;" and "automatically activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time" are all not taught by Terai or Pertsel. In response to the applicant’s argument above, the applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The applicant next argues that claim 1’s “perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance” is not taught by Terai or Pertsel. In response to the applicant’s argument above, Dasher teaches when the distance between the vehicle and a right-side obstacle is less than a threshold an audio alarm sounds to let the passengers know not to exit on the right side of the vehicle (Dasher: Para. 50-51). The applicant’s specification teaches outputting an audio alert notification as a remedial action (Specification: Para. 11). The applicant next argues that claim 1’s “an object image of an object determined by the user and located at the predefined location” is not taught by Terai or Pertsel. The applicant’s argument above is moot because it doesn’t apply to the prior art in this rejection. The applicant next argues that claim 1’s “a preset buffer distance determined by the user and associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object” is not taught by Terai or Pertsel. The applicant’s argument above is moot because it doesn’t apply to the prior art in this rejection. The applicant next argues that claim 1’s “an indication to automatically activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle for future parking operations whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location” is not taught by Terai or Pertsel. In response to the applicant’s argument above, Dasher teaches a system that receives the destination and current location of the vehicle to determine the easy access mode, based on user input, will operate in the arrival state prior to arriving at the destination and in the departure state when leaving the destination (Dasher: Para. 9-10). The applicant next argues that claim 1’s “automatically activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle for the second parking operation based on the user configuration request and responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location at the second time” is not taught by Terai or Pertsel. In response to the applicant’s argument above, Dasher teaches positioning the vehicle at a distance that allows the driver and any passenger on the right side to easily exit by placing the vehicle closer to any object on the left side, which favors providing access to a driver to the car over access to a non-driving passenger to the truck (Dasher: Para. 54). The system lets the driver and any passengers exit. If the vehicle is too close to any object on the left side, then the vehicle repositions the vehicle in the parking spot to equalize the distance between left and right obstacles (Dasher: Para. 55, 57). The applicant next argues that claims 18 and 20 were similarly amended and the arguments for claim 1 would similarly apply to claims 18 and 20. In response to the applicant’s argument above, the examiner has responded to the arguments directed at claim 1. The examiner’s responses would similarly apply to claims 18 and 20 The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Terai’s automatic parking in view of Max’s personalized buffer to known static obstacles and Dasher’s automatic repositioning reads on applicant’s systems and methods to facilitate vehicle parking. The rejection is maintained. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663