DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3
Conclusion 8
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 7/3/24. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 1 and 4 are directed to recognizing parking spaces and it is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. The steps can be evaluated and judged by a human viewing vehicle-periphery image information. The claim limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For claims 2-3, the same logic applies as stated within claim 1 and 4.
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 1, 2, 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruning et al (US 2014/0292542 A1) in view of Yalla et al (US 10,423,162 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bruning teaches a parking lot determination device for recognizing, based on image data acquired by capturing a periphery of a vehicle, a parking space and/or a parked vehicle in the periphery of the vehicle (paragraph [0034]: “The environment sensor system may be based at least on ultrasound-based 2D environment data information... does not exclude the use of environment sensor systems based on video, laser or radar”; paragraph [0036]: the parking system “has found... the objects O1, O2, O3, O4 which are usually implemented by parked vehicles, the free spaces or gaps L1, L2, L3 between the objects”), and determining that the vehicle is traveling in a parking lot when a determination condition that a predetermined number or more of adjacent parking spaces and/or adjacent parked vehicles are recognized is satisfied (paragraph [0018]: “If, for example, the vehicle has driven past a plurality of perpendicular parking spaces and corresponding parked objects within a predefined interval of time, the current parking scenario will highly likely be a perpendicular parking space again; information relating to a current parking scenario can also be gathered from navigation data, for example if the navigation data reveal that the vehicle is in a parking lot”; paragraphs [0039]–[0040]: “number of previously found free spaces in which perpendicular parking is possible; in the example in FIG. 1, these are the three gaps L1, L2 and L3”; paragraph [0033]: the criteria, including the number of previously found free spaces, are evaluated by “a probability-based or a point-based evaluation... a criterion is satisfied”). Bruning does not teach expressly wherein the predetermined number to be used for the determination condition is reduced when a predetermined specific parking space is included in at least one or more parking spaces recognized based on the image data compared with the predetermined number to be used when the predetermined specific parking space is not included.
Yalla, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the predetermined number to be used for the determination condition is reduced when a predetermined specific parking space is included in at least one or more parking spaces recognized based on the image data compared with the predetermined number to be used when the predetermined specific parking space is not included (col. 8, ll. 35–41: “parking place 318 with a blue wheelchair symbol 320, in addition to a blue wheelchair symbol 324 on sign 322, facilitate classification of parking place 318 as a handicapped parking place; consequently, first autonomous vehicle 304 may determine that parking place 318 is permissioned for first autonomous vehicle 304 because a passenger of first autonomous vehicle 304 is disabled”; col. 7, l. 65 – col. 8, l. 3: sensor data is used to “determine that a passenger has a disability that provides for permission to park in reserved handicapped parking place 318”….. col. 8, ll. 4–8: “In an embodiment, parking area 302 may be reduced to search for a parking place close to a destination for the purpose of quickly identifying a parking place for disabled persons”).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bruning to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Yalla. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable identifying permissioned parking relative to multiple classes of restricted and privileged parking see col 1, lines 1-45). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Bruning, while the teaching of Yalla continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Bruning with Yalla teaches all elements of claim 2. Bruning with Yalla does not teach expressly at least one of a first specific parking space indicating a parking space dedicated for a light automobile, a second specific parking space indicating a priority parking space for a disabled person, or a third specific parking space indicating a parking space dedicated for charging an electric vehicle.
Yalla, in the same field of endeavor, teaches at least one of a first specific parking space indicating a parking space dedicated for a light automobile, a second specific parking space indicating a priority parking space for a disabled person, or a third specific parking space indicating a parking space dedicated for charging an electric vehicle (see col. 7, l. 65 – col. 8, l. 3: “determine that a passenger has a disability that provides for permission to park in reserved handicapped parking place 318”; col. 8, ll. 35–41: classification of “parking place 318... as a handicapped parking place).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bruning with Yalla to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Yalla. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable identifying permissioned parking relative to multiple classes of restricted and privileged parking see col 1, lines 1-45). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Bruning with Yalla, while the teaching of Yalla continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is analyzed as a method that implements the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruning et al (US 2014/0292542 A1) with Yalla et al (US 10,423,162 B2), and further in view of Morimoto (US 2015/0291031 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bruning with Yalla teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Bruning with Yalla does not teach expressly wherein the predetermined number to be used for the determination condition is reduced when a predetermined specific parking space is included in at least one or more parking spaces recognized based on the image data compared with the predetermined number to be used when the predetermined specific parking space is not included.
Morimoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the predetermined number to be used for the determination condition is reduced when a predetermined specific parking space is included in at least one or more parking spaces recognized based on the image data compared with the predetermined number to be used when the predetermined specific parking space is not included ((see 0093, 0094, 0101, 0112-0115, 0122-0128, 0133, 0134, 0007).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bruning with Yalla to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Morimoto. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable suppressing the degradation in drive performance at the time or parking (see 0007). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Bruning with Yalla, while the teaching of Morimoto continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John M. Villecco, can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/EDWARD PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights