DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 12/26/2025.
Claims 1-5 and 8-17 are now pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 6 and 7 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 14 are independent claims.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 14, line 14, replace … is disposed closed to the … with … is disposed close to the …
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGASHITANI et al., US PGPUB 2019/0168747 Al (hereinafter as Higashitani) in view of Xiao et al., US PGPUB 2025/0018969 Al (hereinafter as Xiao), Tsujino, US Patent No. 10,787,168 B2 (hereinafter as Tsujino), and Takeuchi et al., US Patent No. 11,813,984 B2 (hereinafter as Takeuchi).
Regarding independent claim 1, Higashitani teaches an electric vehicle parking method [see e.g. figs. 3 and fig. 16] comprising:
generating sensing data by sensing surroundings of an electric vehicle; searching for vacant spaces using the sensing data [note in [0033]-[0035] processing image data to acquire location information for parking slots and other surroundings such as electrical supply equipment; see also e.g. in [0087] the recognition of a plurality of empty parking slots];
selecting a determined parking space for the electric vehicle as a target parking space [note in [0087] the selection of one of the plurality of slots to park the vehicle; see also [0094]];
detecting a position of an electric vehicle charging device corresponding to the target parking space [see in [0041] the recognition of the location of the electrical supply equipment 30 (see also fig. 2)];
determining a parking direction and a parking trajectory of the electric vehicle for the target parking space so that a charging port of the electric vehicle is disposed close to the position of the electric vehicle charging device [note in [0044]-[0045] the determination of a parking direction so that a distance between the charging port and the charging device is reduced; note in [0049] the determination of a target travel path to reach the target spot]; and
moving the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory [note in [0050] the cruising and automatic guiding of the vehicle to the target location along the target path],
wherein the parking trajectory is a movement path traveled by the electric vehicle from its front or rear to an edge, located at an end in a direction of entering the target parking space, of the target parking space [note in [0045] the determination of a forward or parking direction; see also the positions of the vehicle shown in figs. 9].
Higashitani does not explicitly teach:
a) determining whether a vacant space of the vacant spaces is a parking space for electric vehicles, a parking space for conventional vehicles, or an unparkable space; or
b) detecting a section feasible for disembarking and a section infeasible for disembarking from the parking trajectory;
wherein the section feasible for disembarking is a section in which no obstacle is present from the parking trajectory to a left line and a right line,
wherein the section infeasible for disembarking is a section in which an obstacle is present from the parking trajectory to the left line and the right line, and
wherein the left line and the right line each represent a virtual line parallel to the parking trajectory and indicate a movement path of a left extended end point and a right extended end point, respectively, of a plurality of doors of the electric vehicle, when all of the plurality of doors are fully opened.
Xiao teaches determining whether a vacant space is a parking space for electric vehicles, a parking space for conventional vehicles, or an unparkable space [note in [0060] the determination of parking spaces that are available (which differentiates vacant spaces that are unparkable such as those having pillars, surface hazards, ice, cracks, etc., from those that are parkable) and identifying the battery charging spaces from others (which differentiates spaces for electric vehicles from those for conventional vehicles); see also [0050] indicating static object detection and [0051] indicating drivable areas which can be vacant in a parking lot but unparkable; note also in [0016] the signs that indicate a parking restriction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Higashitani and Xiao, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the parking method framework taught by Higashitani by explicitly specifying determining whether a vacant space is a parking space for electric vehicles, a parking space for conventional vehicles, or an unparkable space, as per the teachings of Xiao. The motivation for these obvious combination of teachings would be to enhance sensor-based automated parking assistance in different circumstances and environments, as suggested by Xiao [again, see [0060]; [0050]-[0051] as well as [0016] and [0001]-[0003]].
Higashitani/Xiao, still, does not explicitly teach limitations b) above.
Tsujino teaches:
detecting a section feasible for disembarking and a section infeasible for disembarking from a parking trajectory before moving a vehicle to a target parking space along the parking trajectory [note e.g. in col. 2, lines 39-48 the detection of an obstruction in the vicinity of a parking in accordance with parking initiation before the vehicle enters the parking space],
wherein the section feasible for disembarking is a section in which no obstacle is present within a first reference distance from the parking trajectory among the sections of the parking trajectory, wherein the section infeasible for disembarking is a section in which an obstacle is present within the first reference distance from the parking trajectory among the sections of the parking trajectory [again see col. 2, lines 39-62 and note the disembarking position being free of the obstruction (i.e. within a certain distance from the obstruction); note considering the position of the obstruction and the positions of the vehicle occupants as well as the parking capable frame; compare the disembarking feasible position to positions identified as infeasible for disembarking because of the presence of the obstacle in the vicinity of the parking trajectory which could be (with no loss of generality) at the end of the trajectory, i.e. after the vehicle is parked; see also figs. 6 and 7 and their description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Tsujino, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the assisted parking framework taught by Higashitani for electric vehicles by explicitly specifying detecting a section feasible for disembarking and a section infeasible for disembarking from the parking trajectory before moving the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory, as per the teachings of Tsujino. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow vehicle passengers to easily disembark a vehicle before it is parked in cases of obstructions anywhere along the trajectory of parking without having to worry about the obstruction, thus disembarking passengers more smoothly, as suggested by Tsujino [see col. 2, lines 39-64 and col. 10, lines 30-32].
The previously combined art, still, does not teach that the sections feasible and infeasible for disembarking are marked by a left line and a right line, wherein the left line and the right line each represent a virtual line parallel to the parking trajectory and indicate a movement path of a left extended end point and a right extended end point, respectively, of a plurality of doors of the electric vehicle, when all of the plurality of doors are fully opened.
Takeuchi teaches sections surrounding a vehicle marked by a by a left line and a right line, wherein the left line and the right line each represent a virtual line parallel to a movement trajectory of a vehicle and indicate a movement path of a left extended end point and a right extended end point, respectively, of a plurality of doors of the vehicle, when all of the plurality of doors are fully opened [note fig. 3 and col. 8, lines 25-29, 38-42, and 51-56, col. 9, lines 15-17 and 35-40; and col. 10, lines 9-11; note the determination of sections surrounding a vehicle marked by left and right lines that each represent a virtual line parallel to a direction of movement of the vehicle and are extensions of end points of the doors when they are fully open]. It is to be noted that the movement path of the vehicle taught by Higashitani and Tsujino is the same as the parking trajectory.
Takeuchi’s known technique of identifying sections surrounding a vehicle that will be occupied if a passenger opens any door of a vehicle is applicable to the framework of Tsujino for identifying regions surrounding a parking trajectory in which obstacles are present or absent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Takeuchi’s technique of utilizing end points defined by fully open doors of a vehicle to identify margins for the regions identified in Tsujino’s environment would have yielded the predictable results of avoiding collisions with the doors of the vehicle, as also suggested by Takeuchi [see col. 9, line 4 and lines 60-61], which would enable a way to determine sections that are feasible for disembarking without colliding the vehicle doors.
The rationale for the combination would be that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known invention that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Xiao further teaches that determining whether the vacant space of the vacant spaces is the parking space for the electric vehicles, the parking space for the conventional vehicles, or the unparkable space includes determining the vacant space as the parking space for electric vehicles in response to a determination that an electric vehicle symbol is recognized for the vacant space [note in [0026] the detection of a sign on a parking zone; especially note in [0016] the option of a sign restricting the parked vehicle to be an electric vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Higashitani and Xiao, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the parking method framework taught by Higashitani and modified by Xiao by further explicitly specifying that determining whether the vacant space of the vacant spaces is the parking space for the electric vehicles, the parking space for the conventional vehicles, or the unparkable space includes determining the vacant space as the parking space for electric vehicles in response to a determination that an electric vehicle symbol is recognized for the vacant space, as per the teachings of Xiao. The motivation for these obvious combination of teachings would be to again to enhance sensor-based automated parking assistance in situations that define specific aspects of the parking zone, as also suggested by Xiao [again, see [0016]].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is fully incorporated. Xiao further teaches that the electric vehicle symbol is placed on the ground of the vacant spaces or parking lot pillars disposed in one side of the vacant spaces [again, note in [0026] and [0016] the detection of a sign on a parking zone which indicates being visible on the ground of the vacant space; again, especially note in [0016] the option of a sign restricting the parked vehicle to be an electric vehicle]. See the motivation to combine the cited art in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Higashitani further teaches that the parking direction includes a forward parking direction or a reverse parking direction [note in [0045] the determination of a forward or parking direction].
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Tsujino further teaches that moving the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes: stopping the electric vehicle moving to the target parking space at a particular point in the section feasible for disembarking; and moving the electric vehicle again when all passengers of the vehicle get off [note in col. 9, line 61 – col. 10, line 17 that the vehicle stops at a disembarking position 115 and then resumes movement to the parking position after all the passengers 92 and 93 get off]. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Tsujino further teaches that moving the vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes guiding passengers of the vehicle to get off using a user interface disposed inside the vehicle after stopping the vehicle moving to the target parking space at a particular point in the section feasible for disembarking [see col. 8, lines 21-40 and note the audible guidance to passengers to get off using the speaker 42 (note from fig. 1 that the speaker is part of an interface used for navigation) after the stopping of the vehicle at a disembarking position along the trajectory to the target parking spot]. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Tsujino further teaches that when the section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space [note in col. 5, lines 26-28 the scenario of an obstruction detected inside a parking capable frame], moving the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes: stopping the electric vehicle before the electric vehicle enters the section infeasible for disembarking; and moving the electric vehicle again when all passengers of the electric vehicle get off [note in col. 9, line 61 – col. 10, line 17 that the vehicle stops at a disembarking position 115 and then resumes movement to the parking position after all the passengers 92 and 93 get off]. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding independent claim 14, Higashitani also teaches an electric vehicle charging system [see e.g. fig. 16] comprising:
a sensor configured to sense surroundings of an electric vehicle and generating sensing data [see the imager 11 in fig. 1; note in [0033]-[0035] processing image data to acquire location information for parking slots and other surroundings such as electrical supply equipment]; and
a controller [see the parking assistance ECU 150 in fig. 1] configured to
search for vacant spaces around the electric vehicle using the sensing data [see e.g. in [0087] the recognition of a plurality of empty parking slots],
selecting a determined parking space as a target parking space [note in [0087] the selection of one of the plurality of slots to park the vehicle; see also [0094]];
detect a position of an electric vehicle charging device corresponding to the target parking space when the target parking space is the determined parking space for the electric vehicles [see in [0041] the recognition of the location of the electrical supply equipment 30 (see also fig. 2)];
determine a parking direction and a parking trajectory of the electric vehicle for the target parking space so that a charging port of the electric vehicle is disposed close to the position of the electric vehicle charging device [note in [0044]-[0045] the determination of a parking direction so that a distance between the charging port and the charging device is reduced; note in [0049] the determination of a target travel path to reach the target spot]; and
move the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory [note in [0050] the cruising and automatic guiding of the vehicle to the target location along the target path],
wherein the parking trajectory is a movement path traveled by the electric vehicle from its front or rear to an edge, located at an end in a direction of entering the target parking space, of the target parking space [note in [0045] the determination of a forward or parking direction; see also the positions of the vehicle shown in figs. 9].
Higashitani does not explicitly teach:
a) determining whether a vacant space of the vacant spaces is a parking space for electric vehicles, a parking space for conventional vehicles, or an unparkable space; or
b) detecting a section feasible for disembarking and a section infeasible for disembarking from the parking trajectory;
wherein the section feasible for disembarking is a section in which no obstacle is present from the parking trajectory to a left line and a right line,
wherein the section infeasible for disembarking is a section in which an obstacle is present from the parking trajectory to the left line and the right line, and
wherein the left line and the right line each represent a virtual line parallel to the parking trajectory and indicate a movement path of a left extended end point and a right extended end point, respectively, of a plurality of doors of the electric vehicle, when all of the plurality of doors are fully opened.
Xiao teaches determining whether a vacant space is a parking space for electric vehicles, a parking space for conventional vehicles, or an unparkable space [note in [0060] the determination of parking spaces that are available (which differentiates vacant spaces that are unparkable such as those having pillars, surface hazards, ice, cracks, etc., from those that are parkable) and identifying the battery charging spaces from others (which differentiates spaces for electric vehicles from those for conventional vehicles); see also [0050] indicating static object detection and [0051] indicating drivable areas which can be vacant in a parking lot but unparkable; note also in [0016] the signs that indicate a parking restriction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Higashitani and Xiao, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the charging framework taught by Higashitani including parking assistance of an electric vehicle by explicitly specifying determining whether a vacant space is a parking space for electric vehicles, a parking space for conventional vehicles, or an unparkable space, as per the teachings of Xiao. The motivation for these obvious combination of teachings would be to enhance sensor-based automated parking assistance in different circumstances and environments, as suggested by Xiao [again, see [0060]; [0050]-[0051] as well as [0016] and [0001]-[0003]] which would expand the usability of Higashitani’s charging system to venues that have both parking areas with chargers for electric vehicles and parking spaces for conventional vehicles.
Higashitani/Xiao, still, does not explicitly teach limitations b) above.
Tsujino teaches:
detecting a section feasible for disembarking and a section infeasible for disembarking from a parking trajectory before moving a vehicle to a target parking space along the parking trajectory [note e.g. in col. 2, lines 39-48 the detection of an obstruction in the vicinity of a parking in accordance with parking initiation before the vehicle enters the parking space],
wherein the section feasible for disembarking is a section in which no obstacle is present within a first reference distance from the parking trajectory among the sections of the parking trajectory, wherein the section infeasible for disembarking is a section in which an obstacle is present within the first reference distance from the parking trajectory among the sections of the parking trajectory [again see col. 2, lines 39-62 and note the disembarking position being free of the obstruction (i.e. within a certain distance from the obstruction); note considering the position of the obstruction and the positions of the vehicle occupants as well as the parking capable frame; compare the disembarking feasible position to positions identified as infeasible for disembarking because of the presence of the obstacle in the vicinity of the parking trajectory which could be (with no loss of generality) at the end of the trajectory, i.e. after the vehicle is parked; see also figs. 6 and 7 and their description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Tsujino, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the assisted charging/parking framework taught by Higashitani for electric vehicles by explicitly specifying detecting a section feasible for disembarking and a section infeasible for disembarking from the parking trajectory before moving the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory, as per the teachings of Tsujino. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow vehicle passengers to easily disembark a vehicle before it is parked in cases of obstructions anywhere along the trajectory of parking without having to worry about the obstruction, thus disembarking passengers more smoothly, as suggested by Tsujino [see col. 2, lines 39-64 and col. 10, lines 30-32].
The previously combined art, still, does not teach that the sections feasible and infeasible for disembarking are marked by a left line and a right line, wherein the left line and the right line each represent a virtual line parallel to the parking trajectory and indicate a movement path of a left extended end point and a right extended end point, respectively, of a plurality of doors of the electric vehicle, when all of the plurality of doors are fully opened.
Takeuchi teaches sections surrounding a vehicle marked by a by a left line and a right line, wherein the left line and the right line each represent a virtual line parallel to a movement trajectory of a vehicle and indicate a movement path of a left extended end point and a right extended end point, respectively, of a plurality of doors of the vehicle, when all of the plurality of doors are fully opened [note fig. 3 and col. 8, lines 25-29, 38-42, and 51-56, col. 9, lines 15-17 and 35-40; and col. 10, lines 9-11; note the determination of sections surrounding a vehicle marked by left and right lines that each represent a virtual line parallel to a direction of movement of the vehicle and are extensions of end points of the doors when they are fully open]. It is to be noted that the movement path of the vehicle taught by Higashitani and Tsujino is the same as the parking trajectory.
Takeuchi’s known technique of identifying sections surrounding a vehicle that will be occupied if a passenger opens any door of a vehicle is applicable to the framework of Tsujino for identifying regions surrounding a parking trajectory in which obstacles are present or absent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Takeuchi’s technique of utilizing end points defined by fully open doors of a vehicle to identify margins for the regions identified in Tsujino’s environment would have yielded the predictable results of avoiding collisions with the doors of the vehicle, as also suggested by Takeuchi [see col. 9, line 4 and lines 60-61], which would enable a way to determine sections that are feasible for disembarking without colliding the vehicle doors.
The rationale for the combination would be that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known invention that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is fully incorporated. Higashitani further teaches when a determined parking space is selected as the target parking space [note e.g. in [0087] and [0094] the selection of a target parking spot], and a parking lot pillar installed with an electric vehicle charging device is present in one side of the selected parking space [note in each of figs. 8D-I the pillar installed with an electric charging device on one side a potentially selectable parking spot], the controller is configured to:
detect the position of the electric vehicle charging device installed on the parking lot pillar [again, see e.g. in [0041] the recognition of the location of the electrical supply equipment 30 (see also fig. 2)];
determine the parking direction and the parking trajectory of the electric vehicle for the target parking space so that the charging port of the electric vehicle is disposed close to the position of the electric vehicle charging device [note in [0044]-[0045] the determination of a parking direction so that a distance between the charging port and the charging device is reduced; note in [0049] the determination of a target travel path to reach the target spot]; and
move the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory [note in [0050] the cruising and automatic guiding of the vehicle to the target location along the target path].
Higashitani does not explicitly teach that the parking space selected is for a conventional vehicle.
Xiao teaches spaces that are parking spaces for electric vehicles or parking spaces for conventional vehicles [again, note in [0060] the determination of parking spaces that are available and identifying the battery charging spaces from others (which differentiates spaces for electric vehicles from those for conventional vehicles); note also in [0016] the signs that indicate a parking restriction].
Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Higashitani and Xiao, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the charging framework taught by Higashitani including parking assistance of an electric vehicle by explicitly specifying classifying parking spaces for electric vehicles and parking spaces for conventional vehicles, as per the teachings of Xiao. The motivation for these obvious combination of teachings would be to enhance sensor-based automated parking assistance in different circumstances and environments, as suggested by Xiao [again, see [0060]; [0050]-[0051] as well as [0016] and [0001]-[0003]] which would expand the usability of Higashitani’s charging system to venues that have both parking areas with chargers for electric vehicles and parking spaces for conventional vehicles.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani in view of Xiao, Tsujino, and Takeuchi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blinkle, US Patent No. 10,685,567 B2 (hereinafter as Blinkle).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that determining whether the vacant space of the vacant spaces is the parking space for the electric vehicles, the parking space for the conventional vehicles, or the unparkable space includes determining the vacant space as the unparking space in response to a determination that a width of the vacant space is less than a threshold width, or a length of the vacant space is shorter than a threshold length.
Blinkle teaches determining whether a vacant space is a parkable or unparkable space that includes determining the vacant space as the unparkable space in response to a determination that a width of the vacant space is less than a threshold width, or a length of the vacant space is shorter than a threshold length [note in col. 4, lines 14-25 the comparison of the distance between road markings and detected objects with a threshold value and accordingly determining whether a vacant space is a feasible parking space].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Blinkle, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify that determining whether the vacant space is a parkable or unparkable space includes determining the vacant space as the unparkable space in response to a determination that a width of the vacant space is less than a threshold width, or a length of the vacant space is shorter than a threshold length, as per the teachings of Blinkle. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow for more reliable determinations of viable parking areas, as suggested by Blinkle [see col. 2, lines 7-9].
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani in view of Xiao, Tsujino, and Takeuchi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim, US Patent No. 11,007,999 B2 (hereinafter as Kim).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Although Tsujino teaches when the section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space [note in col. 5, lines 26-28 the scenario of an obstruction detected inside a parking capable frame], moving the vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes: stopping the vehicle; and moving the vehicle again when all passengers of the vehicle get off [again, note in col. 9, line 61 – col. 10, line 17 that the vehicle stops at a disembarking position 115 and then resumes movement to the parking position after all the passengers 92 and 93 get off], Tsujino does not explicitly teaches that when the section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space, moving the vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes: stopping the vehicle in response to a determination that a portion of the electric vehicle enters the target parking space; and moving the electric vehicle again when all passengers of the electric vehicle get off.
Kim teaches a stopping of a vehicle that occurs in response to a determination that a portion of the vehicle enters a target parking space [see col. 2, lines 45-48 and note that the stopping at the third reference location 430 at which the vehicle is stopped in that situation occurs after a portion of the vehicle enters the target parking space, as can be seen in fig. 4B; see also col. 10, lines 37-39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kim, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the assisted parking framework taught by Higashitani and modified by Tsujino by explicitly specifying that the stopping of the vehicle when the section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space, as in the scenario taught by Tsujino, occurs in response to a determination that a portion of the vehicle enters the target parking space, as per the teachings of Kim,. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to adapt the determined spot for stopping for occupants to exit based on an available and needed amount of space for exiting the vehicle during automatic parking to resolve passenger inconvenience and thereby improve the commercial value of the automatic parking system of the vehicle, as suggested by Kim [see col. 1, lines 62-68].
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 6 is fully incorporated.
Although Tsujino teaches when a passenger is present in a rear seat of the vehicle [note detecting occupants in the rear seat in col. 5, lines 18-23; see also col. 8, lines 38-40 indicating disembarking rear passenger], and the section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space [note in col. 5, lines 26-28 the scenario of an obstruction detected inside a parking capable frame], moving the vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes: stopping the vehicle; and moving the vehicle again when all passengers of the vehicle get off [again, note in col. 9, line 61 – col. 10, line 17 that the vehicle stops at a disembarking position 115 and then resumes movement to the parking position after all the passengers 92 and 93 get off], Tsujino does not explicitly teaches that when a passenger is present in a rear seat of the electric vehicle, and the section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space, moving the electric vehicle to the target parking space along the parking trajectory includes: stopping the electric vehicle right before a C pillar of the electric vehicle enters the target parking space during reverse parking; and moving the electric vehicle again when all passengers of the electric vehicle get off.
Kim teaches a stopping of a vehicle that occurs right when a C pillar of the vehicle enters a target parking space during reverse parking when a passenger is present in a rear seat of the vehicle, and a section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space [see col. 2, lines 45-48 and note that the stopping at the third reference location 430 at which the vehicle is stopped and note that this situation occurs right when a C pillar of the vehicle enters a target parking space during reverse parking, as can be seen in fig. 4B; see also col. 10, lines 37-39]. Kim further teaches that the reference location for stopping may be determined based on distances between the host vehicle and other vehicles and information about the specification of the host vehicle, i.e. a stop position right before a C pillar of the electric vehicle enters the target parking space during reverse parking is also possible by the teachings of Kim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kim, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the assisted parking framework taught by Higashitani and modified by Tsujino by explicitly specifying that the stopping of the vehicle occurs right before a C pillar of the vehicle enters a target parking space during reverse parking when a passenger is present in a rear seat of the vehicle, and a section infeasible for disembarking is present inside the target parking space, as per the teachings of Kim. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to adapt the determined spot for stopping for occupants to exit based on an available and needed amount of space for exiting the vehicle during automatic parking to resolve passenger inconvenience and thereby improve the commercial value of the automatic parking system of the vehicle, as suggested by Kim [see col. 1, lines 62-68].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani in view of Xiao, Tsujino, and Takeuchi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lieberman, US PGPUB 2022/0176839 A1 (hereinafter as Lieberman).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated. Higashitani further teaches detecting the position of a charging port of the electric vehicle by the electric vehicle charging device [note e.g. in [0038] the recognition of a location of the charging port 24 of the electric vehicle; see also [0040]].
The previously combined art, however, does not explicitly teach connecting a charging connector to the charging port of the electric vehicle by the electric vehicle charging device.
Lieberman teaches connecting a charging connector to the charging port of the electric vehicle by the electric vehicle charging device [see [0050] indicating an automatically moveable mechanism so that the plug 32 plugs into the charging port 20 of the vehicle; see also fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Lieberman, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify connecting a charging connector to the charging port of the electric vehicle by the electric vehicle charging device, as per the teachings of Lieberman. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to eliminate the need for a human operator and thus maximize the efficiency of the charging station, as suggested by Lieberman [see e.g. [0051]].
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani in view of Xiao, Tsujino, and Takeuchi, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sham, US PGPUB 2017/0144654 Al (hereinafter as Sham).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of independent claim 14 is fully incorporated. Although Xiao teaches parking spaces that are for electric vehicles, for conventional vehicles, and unparkable spaces (as in the portions cited for the rejection of claim 14), the previously combined art does not explicitly teach a user interface configured to display the parking space for electric vehicles, the parking space for conventional vehicles, and the unparking space, separately.
Sham teaches a user interface configured to display different types of spaces separately [note e.g. in fig. 8 and the description in [0031]; especially note in [0069] that the interface can sort the available spaces by type].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Sham, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the assisted parking framework taught by Higashitani for electric vehicles and modified by Xiao to include parking spaces that are for electric vehicles, for conventional vehicles, and unparkable spaces by explicitly specifying a user interface configured to display each of the types of spaces separately, as per the teachings of Sham. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow vehicle passengers to enable easily differentiating available options to a use to simplify presentation and potential elections, as suggested by Sham [see [0069]-[0070]; see also [0013]].
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is fully incorporated. The previously combined art further teaches: based on a signal of the user interface, the controller is configured to select one of the determined parking space for the electric vehicles and the determined parking space for the conventional vehicles as the target parking space [see [0013] and [0070] in Sham teaching selecting a determined parking space based on a signal of the user interface; note in the portions cited of Xiao in the independent claim rejection the teaching of parking spaces demoted as being for electric vehicles or conventional (nonelectric) vehicles ]. Refer to the rejection of claim 15 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in view of the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are accepted. Applicant is however referred to one minor remaining informality, as indicated above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes from the cited art:
Krekel at al., US 20200086850 A1, which teaches park-assist based on vehicle door open positions -see e.g. title and [0005]].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172