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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/16/2026 is being entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are pending. Claim 1 and 5 are amended. The amendment overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. However, after further search and consideration, new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are made and the drawing objection is sustained. Therefore, responsive to this amendment, this rejection has been made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the independent claim limitations “A vehicle comprising: a camera mounted in the vehicle configured to image a surrounding of the vehicle; and an electronic control unit including a processing circuit configured to: perform an automatic parking control while a user is inside the vehicle; determine whether or not a drop off space of a target parking space meets a predetermined condition based on a signal indicating an image obtained from the camera, before the vehicle reaches the target parking space during the automatic parking control, based upon the determination that the drop off space does not meet the predetermined condition, the processing circuit is further configured to: stop the vehicle, propose, to the user inside vehicle via an in-vehicle interface, getting out of the vehicle, receive a user input via the in-vehicle interface indicating whether the user accepts or does not accept the proposal, based upon the user accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface, change into a state in which an execution request for controlling a movement of the vehicle is by an operation from an exterior of the vehicle, after the user gets out of the vehicle, and based upon the user not accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface, not change into the state in which the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle is by the operation from the exterior of the vehicle, after the user gets out of the vehicle.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The claims need to have a drawing that shows the claimed subject matter (similar to Figure 4) that details the steps.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in lines 11-19 “propose, to the user inside vehicle via an in-vehicle interface, getting out of the vehicle, receive a user input via the in-vehicle interface indicating whether the user accepts or does not accept the proposal, based upon the user accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface.. based upon the user not accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface”. There is no support in the specification for these limitations. The specification at most, on Pages 13-14, describes “propose getting out of the vehicle to the user”. There is no proposal via an in-vehicle interface, nor does the user accept or not accept via an in-vehicle interface using input. Therefore, the limitations “propose, to the user inside vehicle via an in-vehicle interface, getting out of the vehicle, receive a user input via the in-vehicle interface indicating whether the user accepts or does not accept the proposal, based upon the user accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface.. based upon the user not accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface” are new matter.
Claims 3-4 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 5 recites in lines 10-19 “proposing, to the user inside vehicle via an in-vehicle interface, getting out of the vehicle, receiving a user input via the in-vehicle interface indicating whether the user accepts or does not accept the proposal, based upon the user accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface.. based upon the user not accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface”. There is no support in the specification for these limitations. The specification at most, on Pages 13-14, describes “propose getting out of the vehicle to the user”. There is no proposal via an in-vehicle interface, nor does the user accept or not accept via an in-vehicle interface using input. Therefore, the limitations “propose, to the user inside vehicle via an in-vehicle interface, getting out of the vehicle, receive a user input via the in-vehicle interface indicating whether the user accepts or does not accept the proposal, based upon the user accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface.. based upon the user not accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface” are new matter.
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 5 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in-vehicle device”. It is indefinite what an in-vehicle device is. For example, is the in-vehicle device a mechanical button, a touch screen, a display, a switch, a speaker/mic? There are many different types of an arrangements of in-vehicle devices. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the in-vehicle device to be a display and touch screen.
Claims 3-4 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in-vehicle device”. It is indefinite what an in-vehicle device is. For example, is the in-vehicle device a mechanical button, a touch screen, a display, a switch, a speaker/mic? There are many different types of an arrangements of in-vehicle devices. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the in-vehicle device to be a display and touch screen.
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 5 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaldo (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0354502 A1) hereinafter Yaldo in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0150660 A1) hereinafter Kim in view of Jung et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,040,482 B1) hereinafter Jung.
Yaldo discloses a vehicle [see Paragraph 0026 - discusses a vehicle being an autonomous vehicle (AV)] comprising:
a camera mounted in the vehicle configured to image a surrounding of the vehicle [see
Paragraph 0028 - discusses a sensing system of the AV includes a camera, see Paragraph 0037 - discusses image data from the camera]; and
an electronic control unit including a processing circuit configured to [see Paragraph 0031 - discusses a controller of the AV includes a processor]:
perform an automatic parking control while a user is inside the vehicle [see Paragraph 0043 - discusses the AV operates in a parking lot to locate an available parking space, the AV moves in a forward operation passing the target parking space, the AV stops after crossing an entry 70, and see Paragraph 0047 - discusses occupants inside vehicle];
determine whether or not a drop off space of a target parking space meets a predetermined condition based on a signal indicating an image obtained from the camera, before the vehicle reaches the target parking space during the automatic parking control [see Paragraph 0037 - discusses using the camera image data to determine whether a target parking space exists (available) and to locate parking space boundary lines, see Paragraph 0043 . discusses the sensor data is characterized to determine whether there is an available target parking space before the vehicle arrives at the target parking space, see Paragraph 0044 - discusses determining that the AV will fit in the target parking space and determining whether the target parking space has limited lateral clearance (meets a predetermined condition)]; and
stop the vehicle, propose, to the user inside vehicle , getting out of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0050 - discusses that when limited lateral clearance exists, the AV stops in the aisle 58 and the vehicle occupants are given options for exiting the AV (i.e. a message is received; prompting the vehicle occupants preferences on which side to exit the vehicle)],
receive a user input see Paragraph 0050 – discusses that the users are prompted to make a selection via a selector input (of a device), the user either selects or does not select].
However, Yaldo fails to explicitly disclose that the user inputs are on an in-vehicle interface.
Kim teaches an in-vehicle interface for operator input [see Figure 3 below, and see Paragraph 0051 – discusses a display unit with an interface (touch input module) for input].
Using in-vehicle interface device as taught by Kim in a vehicle as taught by Yaldo would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, because using cell phones or mobile devices during operation of a vehicle is illegal in some states and having an in-vehicle device integrated in the vehicle at a central location would require less movement and be easier for the user to operate.
However, the combination of Yaldo and Kim fail to disclose:
based upon the user accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface, change into a state in which an execution request for controlling a movement of the vehicle is by an operation from an exterior of the vehicle, after the user gets out of the vehicle, and
based upon the user not accepting the proposal via the in-vehicle interface, not change into the state in which the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle is by the operation from the exterior of the vehicle, after the user gets out of the vehicle.
Jung discloses change into a state in which an execution request for controlling a movement of the vehicle is by an operation from an exterior of the vehicle, after the user gets out of the vehicle [see Column 11 lines 20-37- discusses that after it is sensed the vehicle occupant gets out of the vehicle (see Column 8 lines 42-47 – discusses a controller detects whether an occupant gets out of the vehicle using a door sensor for detecting opening/closing and a seat sensor for detecting the presence of the occupant), then a controller determines a remote parking intention (operation from the exterior) and switches into a state for remote parking until a reception from a remote control is received, and see Figure 5 below - depicts the remote parking where the driver executes from an exterior of a vehicle], and
PNG
media_image1.png
242
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Jung
not change into the state in which the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle is by the operation from the exterior of the vehicle after the user gets out of the vehicle [Column 6 lines 40-45 – discusses that the getting on and off sensor is implemented by multiple sensors (for example a door sensor and a pressure sensor for a seat, see Column 8 lines 42-47 – discusses a controller detects whether an occupant gets out of the vehicle using a door sensor for detecting opening/closing and a seat sensor for detecting the presence of the occupant, and Column 11 lines 20-37, if the occupant gets out of the vehicle (getting on-off sensor detects no pressure on the seat) but the occupant does not close the door after opening, then the state for remote parking intention (operation from the exterior) is not changed].
Jung suggest that by including an assistance system capable of discerning a remote parking intention, reduces inconvenience in the use of a remote control function [see Column 1 lines 15-56]. Jung further suggests an assistance system capable of discerning a remote parking intention, improves a usability of the assistance systems [see Column 21 lines 52-58].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle as taught by Yaldo include processor functions of: (1) changing into a state in which an execution request for controlling a movement of a vehicle is by an operation from an exterior of the vehicle after the user gets out of the vehicle (after the user accepts the proposal) and (2) not changing into the state in which the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle is by the operation from the exterior of the vehicle after the user gets out of the vehicle (after the user does not accept the proposal) as taught by Jung in order to reduce inconvenience in the use of a remote control function [see Column 1 15-56] and improve a usability of the assistance systems for remote parking [see Column 21 lines 52-58] by discerning a remote parking intention of the occupant.
Regarding claim 3, Yaldo, Kim, and Jung disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Jung further discloses wherein when the vehicle is in the state in which the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle is by the operation from the exterior of the vehicle [see Column 11 lines 20-37- discusses that after it is sensed the vehicle occupant gets out of the vehicle (sensor senses door closing), then a controller determines a remote parking intention (operation from the exterior) and switches into a state for remote parking until a reception from a remote control is received], the processing circuit is further configured to move the vehicle to a target parking space automatically in response to receiving the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle by operation from the exterior of the vehicle [see Column 11 lines 38-45 - discusses the driver operates a remote control terminal (execution request from exterior) to park the vehicle in a parking space, see Figure 5 below – depicts the vehicle being moved automatically by remote parking using the remote control].
PNG
media_image1.png
242
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Jung
Jung suggest a remote parking assist system allows a driver to park into a narrow parking space when it is not easy for a driver to get out of the vehicle [see Column 1 lines 32-38].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing function as taught by Yaldo to include moving the vehicle to a target parking space automatically in response to receiving the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle by operation from the exterior of the vehicle when the vehicle is in the state in which the execution request for controlling the movement of the vehicle is by the operation from the exterior of the vehicle as taught by Jung in order to park a vehicle into a narrow space in which it is not easy for a driver to get out [Jung, see Column 1 lines 32-38].
Regarding claim 4, Yaldo, Kim, and Jung disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Yaldo further discloses wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine whether or not the drop off space of the target parking space meets the predetermined condition, before the vehicle reaches the target parking space during the automatic parking control, by determining whether or not there will be a sufficient drop off space when the vehicle moves to the target space [see Paragraph 0047 - discusses that the limited lateral clearance is whether the occupants can exit the AV with enough clearance due to adjacent vehicle(s) when the vehicle is in the target parking space].
Claims 5 and 7-8 are analogous to claims 1 and 3-4 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaldo in view of Kim in view of Jung.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter, and are not persuasive, as noted supra in the rejections of that claimed subject matter.
Regarding the drawing objects, the drawings need to have a method claim (similar to Figure 4) that details the steps of the methods. No new matter should be entered.
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 Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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.
/S.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665