DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 March 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 9, 18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
The applicant’s amendments, filed on 24 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Pertsel et al. (US Patent 12,304,475 B1).
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, a user configuration request associated with a predefined location at which a user regularly parks the vehicle, 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); an object image of an object located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 22, 38; detects an object around the parking space; the feature of the object is compared with the feature of the learned detection object); a preset buffer distance associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object (Terai: Para. 49; the distance between vehicle that is moving toward the parking space and the undetected object is shorter than a predetermined value); and an indication to activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 34; when vehicle stops at a predetermined position around the parking space and information processing apparatus receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking e.g., pressing of a button by the user of vehicle); determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 34; determination processing is performed, for example, when vehicle stops at a predetermined position); activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 18; vehicle automatically travels from a predetermined position around the parking space to the parking space based on a preset route, and parks); 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 perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance.
However Pertsel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41; detecting that the moving object may collide with the ego vehicle from the rear, the response may be for the processors to generate the signal VCTRL to move the ego vehicle forwards and/or to the right).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) with a reasonable expectation of success because by moving the ego vehicle forwards, the moving object may miss the ego vehicle entirely even if the driver of the moving object does not change the trajectory (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41).
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 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 18, Terai teaches a parking assist method comprising: obtaining, by a processor at a first time, user configuration request associated with a predefined location at which a user regularly parks the vehicle, 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); an object image of an object located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 22, 38; detects an object around the parking space; the feature of the object is compared with the feature of the learned detection object); a preset buffer distance associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object (Terai: Para. 49; the distance between vehicle that is moving toward the parking space and the undetected object is shorter than a predetermined value); and an indication to activate a parking assist feature in a vehicle whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 34; when vehicle stops at a predetermined position around the parking space and information processing apparatus receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking e.g., pressing of a button by the user of vehicle); determining, by the processor at a second time subsequent to the first time, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 34; determination processing is performed, for example, when vehicle stops at a predetermined position); activating, by the processor, the parking assist feature in the vehicle responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 18; vehicle automatically travels from a predetermined position around the parking space to the parking space based on a preset route, and parks); 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 performing, by the processor, a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance.
However Pertsel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches performing, by the processor, a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or less than the preset buffer distance (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41; detecting that the moving object may collide with the ego vehicle from the rear, the response may be for the processors to generate the signal VCTRL to move the ego vehicle forwards and/or to the right).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) with a reasonable expectation of success because by moving the ego vehicle forwards, the moving object may miss the ego vehicle entirely even if the driver of the moving object does not change the trajectory (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41).
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, a user configuration request associated with a predefined location at which a user regularly parks the vehicle, 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); an object image of an object located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 22, 38; detects an object around the parking space; the feature of the object is compared with the feature of the learned detection object); a preset buffer distance associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object (Terai: Para. 49; the distance between vehicle that is moving toward the parking space and the undetected object is shorter than a predetermined value); and an indication to activate a parking assist feature in a vehicle whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 34; when vehicle stops at a predetermined position around the parking space and information processing apparatus receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking e.g., pressing of a button by the user of vehicle); determine, at a second time subsequent to the first time, that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 34; determination processing is performed, for example, when vehicle stops at a predetermined position); activate the parking assist feature in the vehicle responsive to determining that the vehicle is located at the predefined location (Terai: Para. 18; vehicle automatically travels from a predetermined position around the parking space to the parking space based on a preset route, and parks); 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 perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or approaching the preset buffer distance.
However Pertsel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the distance is equivalent to or approaching the preset buffer distance (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41; detecting that the moving object may collide with the ego vehicle from the rear, the response may be for the processors to generate the signal VCTRL to move the ego vehicle forwards and/or to the right).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) with a reasonable expectation of success because by moving the ego vehicle forwards, the moving object may miss the ego vehicle entirely even if the driver of the moving object does not change the trajectory (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41).
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Pertsel et al. (US Patent 12,304,475 B1) and in further view of Rastoll et al. (US Publication 2020/0192352 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Terai and Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity of the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is in 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 and Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity of the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is in within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97).
Regarding claim 8, Terai and Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity of the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is in within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97).
Claims 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Pertsel et al. (US Patent 12,304,475 B1), and in further view of Rastoll et al. (US Publication 2020/0192352 A1).
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 doesn’t explicitly teach perform the remedial action based on the comparison.
However Pertsel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform the remedial action based on the comparison (Pertsel: Col. 2 Lines 57-64; response to the potential collision may be to generate an audio collision warning; audio collision warning may comprise honking a horn, playing an audio recording and/or providing corrective instructions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) with a reasonable expectation of success because by moving the ego vehicle forwards, the moving object may miss the ego vehicle entirely even if the driver of the moving object does not change the trajectory (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41).
Terai and Pertsel 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.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic parking (Terai: Para. 34) with the moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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 Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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 Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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 Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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 16, Terai and Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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 Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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).
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 Pertsel et al. (US Patent 12,304,475 B1), 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 and Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) 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 Pertsel et al. (US Patent 12,304,475 B1), Dasher et al. (US Publication 2025/0242798 A1), and in further view of Kanesaka (US Publication 2025/0304039 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Terai, Pertsel, 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41), 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).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Terai et al. (US Publication 2024/0067206 A1) in view of Pertsel et al. (US Patent 12,304,475 B1), Rastoll et al. (US Publication 2020/0192352 A1), and in further view of Dasher et al. (US Publication 2025/0242798 A1).
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 Pertsel 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41) and the determination that the vehicle is in proximity of the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining that the vehicle is in within proximity of a parking space allows for successful automated parking into the parking space (Rastoll: Para. 97).
Terai, Pertsel, and Rastoll 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 moving of the vehicle away from a detected object (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41), the determination that the vehicle is in proximity of the parking spot (Rastoll: Para. 97), 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 24 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant’s attorney argues that neither Pertsel nor Terai teaches or suggests such a "user configuration request" that is "associated with a predefined location at which a user regularly parks the vehicle" and includes: (i) "geo-coordinates associated with the predefined location;" (ii) "an object image of an object located at the predefined location;" (iii) "a preset buffer distance associated with a predefined vehicle portion of the vehicle and the object;" and (iv) "an indication to activate a parking assist feature in the vehicle whenever the vehicle is located at the predefined location."
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Terai teaches a parking space which the vehicle has been parked in the past and is set by the user in advance (Terai: Para. 19). The registered parking space which is parked in after an operation of execution direction by the user is a user configured request to a registered space (Terai: Para. 19, 54, Fig. 3). Since the parking space is set in advance, that is the first time.
Terai teaches comparing the GPS position information between the vehicle’s GPS receiver and the set GPS position information of the parking space (Terai: Para. 136). The GPS position information are geo-coordinates associated with the registered parking space and the vehicle’s current GPS receiver.
Terai teaches detecting an object around the parking space which is compared to previously learned objects and their positions (Terai: Para. 22, 38). The system detects an image of the object if it compares that image to the stored objects.
Terai teaches detecting when the distance between vehicle that is moving toward the parking space and the undetected object is shorter than a predetermined value (Terai: Para. 49).
Terai teaches staring automatic parking when the vehicle stops at a predetermined position around the parking space and the information processing apparatus receives an operation for execution direction of automatic parking by the user pressing of a button (Terai: Para. 34). The pressing of a button is an indication to activate a parking feature. The starting of an automatic parking movement is at a second time, which is a time later than the time the user registers the parking space.
After the vehicle is located at a predetermined position around the parking space and the button is pushed by the driver the vehicle travels along a preset route (Terai: Para. 18, 34). This is the activation of the parking assist feature when the vehicle is located at the predefined location.
Terai teaches a camera, a sonar, or an LIDAR detecting an object around the vehicle (Terai: Para. 21, 126).
While the vehicle is executing the automatic parking after an user pressed button (Terai: Para. 34) the system determines any objects around the vehicle. The system displays an image indicating the position and the distance between the vehicle and any detected object (Terai: Para. 126). The system must determine the distance to the object if that distance is displayed to the user.
Pertsel also teaches automatic parking. Pertsel also detects objects around the vehicle while the vehicle is in an autonomous parking state. Pertsel teaches the remedial action of moving the vehicle away from the detected object when the distance to that object is less than a present distance (Pertsel: Col. 32 Lines 24-41).
The combination of Terai in view of Pertsel teaches the applicant’s invention.
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 Pertsel‘s remedial action reads on applicant’s systems and methods to facilitate vehicle parking. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights