DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has asserted that the Suzuki reference (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0193725) does not disclose autonomous control of the vehicle, however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Suzuki teaches controlling the subject vehicle by automated driving (Suzuki: Par. 42; i.e., The exit position setting unit 501 sets a position to which the subject vehicle is controlled to exit from the parking position by automated driving). Therefor, Suzuki does teach autonomous control of the vehicle.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10, specifically regarding the limitation “wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle”, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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, 2, 4, 6, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0193725; hereinafter Suzuki) and further in view of Okabe et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0128234; hereinafter Okabe).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method for operating a parking assistance system for a vehicle, wherein the parking assistance system is configured for autonomous control of the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 32; i.e., The parking and exit assist apparatus 100 is equipped in a vehicle and assists a parking operation of moving (parking) the vehicle into a parking space and an exit operation of moving the vehicle from the parking space),
the method comprising: receiving a plurality of sensor signals from a corresponding plurality of environment sensors arranged on the vehicle, wherein the respective sensor signal is indicative of obstacles arranged in a specific region in an area surrounding the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 88; i.e., the presence or absence of an adjacent parked vehicle 2 is detected on the basis of the image information obtained by a camera and/or the ranging information obtained by the ranging device),
and wherein a first number of the sensor signals is indicative of a first side region of the vehicle and a second number of the sensor signals is indicative of a second side region of the vehicle opposite the first side region (Suzuki: Par. 34; i.e., the right-side camera 12, which is installed on the right side of the vehicle, captures images on the right side of the subject vehicle… The left-side camera 13, which is installed on the left side of the vehicle, captures images on the left side of the subject vehicle),
determining whether there is an obstacle in the first or second side region based on the strength of the received first or second number of sensor signals (Suzuki: Par. 69; i.e., the determination condition for the presence or absence of an adjacent parked vehicle 2 may be a determination condition with which, when the distance between an object entering a detection range RD of the onboard sensor and the subject vehicle 1 becomes a threshold or less, a determination is made that an adjacent parked vehicle 2 is present; the strength of the sensor signal is indicative of the distance of the object);
determining a trajectory for the vehicle that passes through the first or the second side region if it has been determined that the respective side region is free of obstacles (Suzuki: Par. 81; i.e., when no adjacent parked vehicle 2 is present, an exit route is generated such that the subject vehicle 1 passes through the adjacent parking space 9; as displayed in Figures 23 and 24, when the side region is free of obstacles, the trajectory passes through the side region);
and initiating autonomous motion along the determined trajectory (Suzuki: Par. 82; i.e., the subject vehicle 1 is controlled to exit along the exit route).
While Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor signal comprises an ultrasonic signal (Suzuki: Par. 35; i.e., The ranging device 15 is a radar device or a sonar, such as a millimeter-wave radar, laser radar, or ultrasonic radar), Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Okabe teaches wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle (Okabe: Par. 48; i.e., The own vehicle C1 includes … four sonars on each of the front and rear bumpers… The sonar 12 transmits an ultrasonic wave … The sensor control unit 16 specifies a relative position (relative coordinates) of the object with respect to a vehicle body by utilizing the principle of trilateration based on distances between the plurality of sonars 12 and the object that are calculated by the plurality of sonars 12 respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Suzuki to have further incorporated wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle, as taught by Okabe. Doing so would allow the system to determine the presence of a shielding object such as a guardrail (Okabe: Par. 50; i.e., When a plurality of shielding object candidates are detected by a plurality of sonars and it is estimated based on coordinates of the plurality of object candidates that the shielding object candidates are arranged in a line, the sensor control unit 16 estimates that a shielding object is present).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the method according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the specific region forms a substantially enclosed region around the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 34; i.e., the set of cameras 10 comprises a front camera 11, a right-side camera 12, a left-side camera 13, and a rear camera 14).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the method according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least one radar sensor signal, a lidar sensor signal and/or a camera sensor signal (Suzuki: Par. 33; i.e., The parking and exit assist apparatus 100 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention comprises a set of cameras 10, a ranging device 15).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the method according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the method is carried out to autonomously unpark the vehicle, wherein the determined trajectory connects a parking position of the vehicle to a traveling position of the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 82; i.e., the exit route generation unit 505 determines whether or not the subject vehicle 1 can reach the target exit line TL when the subject vehicle 1 is controlled to exit along the exit route generated in step S106; as displayed in Figures 23 and 24, the trajectory connects the parking position to the target exit line).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the method according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause said computer to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (Suzuki: Par. 39; i.e., The parking and exit assist ECU 50 comprises a ROM 52 that stores a parking and exit assist program, a CPU 51 as an operation circuit that executes the program stored in the ROM 52 to serve as the parking and exit assist apparatus).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches a parking assistance system for a vehicle, wherein the parking assistance system is configured for autonomous control of the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 32; i.e., The parking and exit assist apparatus 100 is equipped in a vehicle and assists a parking operation of moving (parking) the vehicle into a parking space and an exit operation of moving the vehicle from the parking space)
wherein the parking assistance system comprises: a receiving unit for receiving a plurality of sensor signals from a corresponding plurality of environment sensors arranged on the vehicle, wherein the respective sensor signal is indicative of obstacles arranged in a specific region in an area surrounding the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 88; i.e., the presence or absence of an adjacent parked vehicle 2 is detected on the basis of the image information obtained by a camera and/or the ranging information obtained by the ranging device),
and wherein a first number of the sensor signals is indicative of a first side region of the vehicle and a second number of the sensor signals is indicative of a second side region of the vehicle opposite the first side region (Suzuki: Par. 34; i.e., the right-side camera 12, which is installed on the right side of the vehicle, captures images on the right side of the subject vehicle… The left-side camera 13, which is installed on the left side of the vehicle, captures images on the left side of the subject vehicle),
a detection unit for determining whether there is an obstacle in the first and/or second side region based on the strength of the received first and/or second number of sensor signals (Suzuki: Par. 69; i.e., the determination condition for the presence or absence of an adjacent parked vehicle 2 may be a determination condition with which, when the distance between an object entering a detection range RD of the onboard sensor and the subject vehicle 1 becomes a threshold or less, a determination is made that an adjacent parked vehicle 2 is present; the strength of the sensor signal is indicative of the distance of the object),
a determination unit for determining a trajectory for the vehicle that passes through the first or the second side region if no obstacle has been found in the respective side region (Suzuki: Par. 81; i.e., when no adjacent parked vehicle 2 is present, an exit route is generated such that the subject vehicle 1 passes through the adjacent parking space 9; as displayed in Figures 23 and 24, when the side region is free of obstacles, the trajectory passes through the side region),
and a control unit for initiating autonomous motion along the determined trajectory (Suzuki: Par. 82; i.e., the subject vehicle 1 is controlled to exit along the exit route).
While Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor signal comprises an ultrasonic signal (Suzuki: Par. 35; i.e., The ranging device 15 is a radar device or a sonar, such as a millimeter-wave radar, laser radar, or ultrasonic radar), Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Okabe teaches wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle (Okabe: Par. 48; i.e., The own vehicle C1 includes … four sonars on each of the front and rear bumpers… The sonar 12 transmits an ultrasonic wave … The sensor control unit 16 specifies a relative position (relative coordinates) of the object with respect to a vehicle body by utilizing the principle of trilateration based on distances between the plurality of sonars 12 and the object that are calculated by the plurality of sonars 12 respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking assistance system of Suzuki to have further incorporated wherein each of the first and/or second number of sensor signals comprises at least three ultrasonic sensor signals configured to trilaterate the obstacle, as taught by Okabe. Doing so would allow the system to determine the presence of a shielding object such as a guardrail (Okabe: Par. 50; i.e., When a plurality of shielding object candidates are detected by a plurality of sonars and it is estimated based on coordinates of the plurality of object candidates that the shielding object candidates are arranged in a line, the sensor control unit 16 estimates that a shielding object is present).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the parking assistance system according to claim 10. Suzuki further teaches a vehicle comprising a plurality of environment sensors (Suzuki: Par. 32; i.e., The parking and exit assist apparatus 100 is equipped in a vehicle; Par. 33; i.e., The parking and exit assist apparatus 100 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention comprises a set of cameras 10),
wherein each respective environment sensor of the plurality of environment sensors is configured to detect obstacles arranged in a specific region of an area surrounding the vehicle and to output a corresponding sensor signal (Suzuki: Par. 88; i.e., the presence or absence of an adjacent parked vehicle 2 is detected on the basis of the image information obtained by a camera and/or the ranging information obtained by the ranging device),
wherein a first number of the environment sensors are configured to detect a first side region of the vehicle and a second number of the environment sensors are configured to detect a second side region of the vehicle opposite the first side region (Suzuki: Par. 34; i.e., the right-side camera 12, which is installed on the right side of the vehicle, captures images on the right side of the subject vehicle… The left-side camera 13, which is installed on the left side of the vehicle, captures images on the left side of the subject vehicle),
and wherein the vehicle comprises a parking assistance system as claimed in claim 10 (Suzuki: Par. 32; i.e., The parking and exit assist apparatus 100 is equipped in a vehicle and assists a parking operation of moving (parking) the vehicle into a parking space and an exit operation of moving the vehicle from the parking space).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the vehicle according to claim 11. Suzuki further teaches wherein the plurality of environmental sensors comprise one or more ultrasonic sensors, one or more radar sensors, one or more lidar sensors, and one or more cameras (Suzuki: Par. 35; i.e., The ranging device 15 is a radar device or a sonar, such as a millimeter-wave radar, laser radar, or ultrasonic radar; Par. 69; i.e., Examples of the onboard sensor include sonar sensors, infrared sensors, laser sensors, radar sensors, and stereo cameras).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the vehicle according to claim 11. Suzuki further teaches wherein at least one of the environment sensors of the first number and the second number is arranged on a vehicle side of the vehicle that corresponds to the respective side region (Suzuki: Par. 34; i.e., The left-side camera 13, which is installed on the left side of the vehicle, captures images on the left side of the subject vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the vehicle according to claim 13. Suzuki further teaches wherein the respective at least one environment sensor is arranged in a section of the vehicle side between a front axle of the vehicle and a rear axle of the vehicle (Suzuki: Par. 69; i.e., a detection range RD of the onboard sensor; As displayed in Figure 18, the sensor is arranged between the front and rear axles on the left side of the vehicle corresponding to the left side detection range).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Okabe and further in view of Wittorf (GB Publication No. 2475871; hereinafter Wittorf).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the environment sensors from which the first and the second number of sensor signals are received are active only if a speed of the vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined upper limit speed, wherein the upper limit speed is 5 km/h.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wittorf teaches wherein the environment sensors from which the first and the second number of sensor signals are received are active only if a speed of the vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined upper limit speed, wherein the upper limit speed is 5 km/h (Wittorf: Page 3, lines 9-13; i.e., for this mapped location the apparatus according to the present invention is processing the data received from the navigation system as location and vehicle speed, which has to fall below 5 km/h, resulting in always activating the parking sensor; as displayed in Figure 1, the parking sensor is activated when the vehicle speed is below 5 km/h).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Suzuki to have further incorporated wherein the environment sensors from which the first and the second number of sensor signals are received are active only if a speed of the vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined upper limit speed, wherein the upper limit speed is 5 km/h, as taught by Wittorf. Doing so would improve automation while reducing manual tasks (Wittorf: Page 6, lines 13-15; i.e., an easy way of locally based automated proceedings, otherwise being required to be executed by the driver of a motor vehicle, is provided).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Okabe and further in view of Urban et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0078130; hereinafter Urban).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the received first number and the received second number of sensor signals are additionally used to determine whether there is an obstacle in a pivoting region of a door of the vehicle, and a predetermined action is carried out if an obstacle has been found in the pivoting region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Urban teaches wherein the received first number and the received second number of sensor signals are additionally used to determine whether there is an obstacle in a pivoting region of a door of the vehicle, and a predetermined action is carried out if an obstacle has been found in the pivoting region (Urban: Par. 47; i.e., Environmental sensors S1a, S1b each send a transmit pulse 65, which, provided an object 7 is present in environment 6, is reflected back as echo pulse 66 to environmental sensors S1a, S1b; Par. 57; i.e., Door protection device 42, for example, outputs an acoustic and/or optical warning signal in case of a threat of collision with an object when opening the door).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Suzuki and Okabe to have further incorporated wherein the received first number and the received second number of sensor signals are additionally used to determine whether there is an obstacle in a pivoting region of a door of the vehicle, and a predetermined action is carried out if an obstacle has been found in the pivoting region, as taught by Urban. Doing so would allow the system to avoid collisions with objects near the door of the vehicle (Urban: Par. 49; i.e., a door protection is to be realized for a parking support device such that possible collisions with objects 7 in environment 6 of motor vehicle 1 can be avoided).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki in view of Okabe teaches the vehicle according to claim 11. Okabe further teaches wherein each of the first and the second number of environment sensors comprises at least three ultrasonic sensors (Okabe: Par. 48; i.e., The own vehicle C1 includes … four sonars on each of the front and rear bumpers… The sonar 12 transmits an ultrasonic wave), but does not explicitly teach wherein the respective three ultrasonic sensors are arranged on the vehicle side that corresponds to the respective side region in such a way that each of them defines a plane.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Urban teaches wherein the respective three ultrasonic sensors are arranged on the vehicle side that corresponds to the respective side region in such a way that each of them defines a plane (Urban: Par. 50; i.e., environmental sensors for door protection usually measure at a lower height above a roadway than environmental sensors for parking space monitoring; Figure 2; As displayed in Figure 2, the sensors are arranged on the vehicle side corresponding to the respective side region and each one defines a plane at different heights above the road).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Suzuki and Okabe to have further incorporated wherein the respective three ultrasonic sensors are arranged on the vehicle side that corresponds to the respective side region in such a way that each of them defines a plane, as taught by Urban. Doing so would allow for improved precision of detection of the environment (Urban: Par. 7; i.e., in order to enable as precise an environment detection as possible, it is desirable to possibly operate a plurality of measurement sensors simultaneously).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665