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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 1/28/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-5; and added claims 6-9. Claims 1-9 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/28/2026 obviate said claim interpretation – accordingly, the claim interpretation under § 112(f) is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended independent claim 1, Applicant first argues in regards to Step 2A, Prong One that certain subject matter of claim 1 — i.e., control a display to display the start button on the display screen of the touch panel, detect a line-of-sight angle of the driver based on images obtained from the camera and determine whether a region requiring visual recognition around the vehicle is visually recognized after the automatic parking is started based on the detected line-of-sight angle — cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Applicant then argues in regards to Step 2A, Prong Two that the amended claim now recites a system with a touch panel including a display screen, a camera and a processor, and that the foregoing amounts to a particular machine with components which are integral to the claim. Applicant submits that such integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Addressing Step 2A, Prong One, this prong asks if the claim recites a mental process. In claim 1, the claim limitations pertaining to performing determinations and correcting a line-of-sight angle are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments and evaluations over obtained data to arrive at optimal calculations (i.e., calculate a corrected line-of-sight angle). Thus, claim 1 triggers further analysis from Step 2A, Prong One.
Turning to the claim limitations at issue, note well that whether these claim limitations are mental processes are not is moot for Step 2A, Prong One as the claim already recites identified mental processes elsewhere. Regardless, further the “control” and “detect” steps constitute insignificant pre-solution activity as identified in Step 2B. (See 101 rejection below for a detailed analysis.) Continuing, the “determine” step is also a mental process in the same manner as the other identified mental processes; that is, it is a judgment/evaluation over obtained data to arrive at an optimal calculation.
Addressing Step 2A, Prong Two, Examiner respectfully submits that the claim as a whole is merely using generic computer components (i.e., a processor) that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The added limitations of “a touch panel with a display screen” and “a camera disposed inside of the vehicle and configured to image the driver” are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are mere generic computer components through which insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., data gathering) is performed in a routine and conventional manner. Hence, the foregoing elements constitute a mere general linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., line-of-sight correction during automatic parking).
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are maintained.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended independent claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited prior art neither teaches nor suggests “the at least one processor corrects the line-of-sight angle at a start of execution of the automatic parking until a current session of the automatic parking ends.” Namely, Applicant argues that neither Hirata ’324 nor Shigeta performing line-of-sight calibration in the claimed time period.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art renders the claim limitation as obvious. Primary reference Min discloses an automatic parking system configured to perform automatic parking of a vehicle, wherein the processing pertaining to line-of-sight is performed during automatic parking (“When the automatic parking function is turned on (S240), an appropriate parking candidate is determined and the driver selects it to perform automatic parking. If the current driver’s line of sight position and the driver's level of carelessness are not negligent in managing and supervising automatic parking (example of S245), automatic parking is performed as scheduled (S250).” ¶ 48.).
Additionally, Shigeta teaches: correct the line-of-sight angle when a driver starts a vehicle operation (“The flowchart in FIG. 13 [for correcting a line-of-sight angle of a driver] is started triggered by a turning-on operation of a key switch …. In the control idea shown in this flowchart, display for guiding the eye gaze of the driver is executed for a predetermined time (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes) from the key-on.” ¶ 157 and FIG. 13. See also ¶¶ 158-179 which provides discussion regarding the method disclosed in FIG. 13.).
Given this context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that incorporating the correcting a line-of-sight teachings of Hirata ’324 and Shigeta into Min would yield correcting a line-of-sight angle during Min’s automatic parking. That is, the teachings would necessarily start during automatic parking as that is the context in which the combination of prior art will work in; Shigeta especially provides context that correcting a line-of-sight would start at the start of a vehicle operation. And as to ending the processing when automatic parking ends, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that performing the teachings of Hirata ’324 and Shigeta outside of automatic parking would go against an ordinary understanding of engineering principles wherein control processes are not performed indefinitely but rather for a duration of an appropriate context. Indeed, to either prematurely end or indefinitely extend processing beyond an automatic parking would go against Min’s principles of performing on-going monitoring during automatic parking, and would degrade the accuracy of said monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the correction teachings at the start of and for the duration of Min’s automatic parking session.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claims 1-9.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claim 1 is provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. An automatic parking system configured to perform automatic parking of a vehicle when a start button for instructing start of automatic parking is operated by a driver, the system comprising:
a touch panel with a display screen;
a camera disposed inside of the vehicle and configured to image the driver; and
at least one processor programmed to:
control a display to display the start button on the display screen of the touch panel;
detect a line-of-sight angle of the driver, based on images obtained from the camera;
determine whether a region requiring visual recognition around the vehicle is visually recognized after the automatic parking is started based on the detected line-of-sight angle;
provide a notification when the at least one processor determines that the region requiring visual recognition is not visually recognized; and
correct the detected line-of-sight angle based on a reference line-of-sight angle determined based on a display position of the start button and the detected line-of-sight angle when the driver operates the start button on the display screen,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the determination using the line-of-sight angle that has been corrected when the line-of-sight angle is corrected by the at least one processor, and
the at least one processor corrects the line-of-sight angle at a start of execution of the automatic parking, until a current session of the automatic parking ends.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to performing determinations and correcting a line-of-sight angle are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments and evaluations over obtained data to arrive at optimal calculations (i.e., calculate a corrected line-of-sight angle). The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components—i.e., a processor—that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, conducted through generic computer component(s) in a conventional manner:
a touch panel with a display screen; at least one processor configured to control a display to display the start button on the display screen of the touch panel.
a camera disposed inside of the vehicle and configured to image the driver; at least one processor configured to detect a line-of-sight angle of the driver, based on images obtained from the camera
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity, conducted through generic computer component(s):
at least one processor configured to provide a notification at least one processor determines that the region requiring visual recognition is not visually recognized.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
set the region requiring visual recognition,
determine that the region requiring visual recognition is visually recognized,
estimate a line-of-sight angle when the start button is visually recognized,
use the line-of-sight angle that has been estimated as the reference line-of-sight angle,
extract the line-of-sight angle based on a time-series change of multiple detected line-of-sight angles
set the predetermined time to be longer
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
acquire a traveling direction of the vehicle in the automatic parking, and
display the start button at a position different from a previous position on the display screen.
Claims 1-9 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected under § 101.
Note
The addition of a positive recitation of vehicle – e.g., positively reciting automatic parking – may render the claim as patent eligible pending further consideration. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification has support for such an amendment at PGPUB ¶¶ 16-17.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Jang Young Min et al. (KR20230073438A; “Min”) in view of Hirata et al. (US20180354556A1; “Hirata ’556”), in view of Hirata (US20200327324A1; “Hirata ’324”) and in view of Shigeta et al. (US20160342205A1; “Shigeta”).
As to claim 1, Min discloses an automatic parking system configured to perform automatic parking of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a camera disposed inside of the vehicle and configured to image the driver (“An automatic parking system linked to driver inattention judgment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes an inattention judgment criterion setting unit that determines a forward gaze area by using the driver's pupil information and vehicle driving information detected from an image capturing the driver.” ¶ 7. “The front image capturing unit (120) of the automatic parking system (100) linked to driver inattention judgment according to one embodiment of the present invention is a front shooting camera that captures the direction in which the driver is looking.” ¶ 21.), and
at least one processor (processor (32) - ¶ 55.) programmed to:
detect a line-of-sight angle of the driver, based on images obtained from the camera (“An automatic parking system linked to driver inattention judgment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes an inattention judgment criterion setting unit that determines a forward gaze area by using the driver's pupil information and vehicle driving information detected from an image capturing the driver.” ¶ 7. See also ¶ 21.);
determine whether a region requiring visual recognition around the vehicle is visually recognized after the automatic parking is started based on the line-of-sight angle detected by the detected line-of-sight detection unit (“The automatic parking judgment unit (160) may not allow the driver to control the automatic parking vehicle when performing automatic parking if the driver's gaze position and state do not correspond to the preset automatic parking situation-specific gaze position and state when performing automatic parking.” ¶ 35.); and
provide a notification when the visual recognition determination unit determines that the region requiring visual recognition is not visually recognized (“If the current driver's gaze position and the driver's state of inattention are such that they are inattentive to supervising the automatic parking (No in S245), the automatic parking may not be performed, or even if the automatic parking is performed, the vehicle control by the driver may not be permitted (S255) … in this case, the automatic parking system (100) linked to the driver's negligence judgment can issue a warning to the driver.” ¶ 49.).
Min fails to explicitly disclose:
a touch panel with a display screen, and
at least one processor programmed to control a display to display the start button the display screen of the touch panel.
Nevertheless, Hirata ’556 teaches: a touch panel with a display screen, and at least one processor programmed to control a display to display the start button the display screen of the touch panel (“The display processing unit 404 may further display, on the parking assist screen 500, an assist start button B serving as a trigger to start the parking assist control.” ¶ 101 and FIG. 10.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Min to include the feature of: a touch panel with a display screen, and at least one processor programmed to control a display to display the start button the display screen of the touch panel, as taught by Hirata ’556, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “provide an interface that makes an operation for starting the parking assist control intuitively intelligible and simple.” (Hirata ’556, ¶ 7.)
The combination of Min and Hirata 556 fails to explicitly disclose:
correct the detected line-of-sight angle based on a reference line-of-sight angle and the line-of-sight angle detected, and
perform the determination using the line-of-sight angle that has been corrected when the line-of-sight angle is corrected by the at least one processor.
Nevertheless, Hirata ’324 teaches:
correct a detected line-of-sight angle based on a reference line-of-sight angle and the line-of-sight angle detected (“Angle θ in equation (2) represents an angle which is output from the line-of-sight measurement device 201 and indicates a measurement value in the line-of-sight direction. ” - ¶ 57. “p [i.e., ρ] in equation (2) is a rotation parameter, and is an angle formed by a reference direction of measurement by the line-of-sight measurement device 201 and a reference direction (here, the Y axis) of a calibrated line of sight. ” - ¶ 58. Taking these parameters into account, a “calibrated line-of-sight direction θ′=(θ−ρ)” may be calculated. See ¶ 71 and FIG. 6.) and
perform the determination using the line-of-sight angle that has been corrected when the line-of-sight angle is corrected by the at least one processor
(“The line-of-sight direction determining unit 107 determines that the user has been viewing the gaze determination target P if the angular difference between the calibrated line-of-sight direction θ′ input from the calibrated value calculating unit 105 and the direction θtarget of the gaze determination target P in the yaw-pitch space is less than a threshold value.” ¶ 72 and FIG. 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Min and Hirata ’556 to include the features of: correct a detected line-of-sight angle based on a reference line-of-sight angle and the line-of-sight angle detected; and perform the determination using the line-of-sight angle that has been corrected when the line-of-sight angle is corrected by the at least one processor, as taught by Hirata ’324, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for calibrating a line-of-sight device and thereby reducing measurement error. (See Hirata ’324, ¶¶ 7-8.)
The combination of Min, Hirata ’556 and Hirata ’324 fails to explicitly disclose: correct the detected line-of-sight angle based on a reference line-of-sight angle determined based on a display position of the start button and the line-of-sight angle when the driver operates the start button on the display screen.
Nevertheless, Shigeta teaches: correct the line-of-sight angle detected by the line-of-sight detection unit based on a reference line-of-sight angle determined based on a display position of a button and the line-of-sight angle detected by the line-of-sight detection unit when the driver operates a button (“The display control apparatus 2 uses a display object displayed by the display unit 3 as a gaze target object.” ¶ 41. See also FIGS. 8-12. “The flowchart in FIG. 13 [for correcting a line-of-sight angle of a driver] is started triggered by a turning-on operation of a key switch …. In the control idea shown in this flowchart, display for guiding the eye gaze of the driver is executed for a predetermined time (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes) from the key-on.” ¶ 157 and FIG. 13. See also ¶¶ 158-179 which provides discussion regarding the method disclosed in FIG. 13.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Min, Hirata ’556 and Hirata ’324 to include the feature of: correct the line-of-sight angle detected by the line-of-sight detection unit based on a reference line-of-sight angle determined based on a display position of a button and the line-of-sight angle detected by the line-of-sight detection unit when the driver operates a button, as taught by Shigeta, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “enabling accurate and prompt calibration of eye gaze direction detection information of a subject.” (Shigeta, ¶ 23.)
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to follow the rationale of Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results to perform a simple substitution of Hirata 556’s start button for Shigeta’s display object to arrive at the claim limitation at issue. The substitution would have been predictable and have a reasonable expectation of success because Hirata ’556’s start button is also a display object which would be displayed in the same manner as Shigeta’s taught display objects. Performing this substitution would yield calibration of line-of-sight based on a display position of a start button. Additionally, this substitution would also serve to trigger Shigeta’s processing as Hirata ’556’s start button performs the same function as Shigeta’s key switch (i.e., starting a vehicle operation). Therefore, the entire claim limitation would be yielded by the above-described simple substitution.
The combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta fails to explicitly disclose: the at least one processor corrects the line-of-sight angle at a start of execution of the automatic parking, until a current session of the automatic parking ends.
However, the combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta renders the claim limitation as obvious. Recall that Min discloses an automatic parking system configured to perform automatic parking of a vehicle, wherein the processing pertaining to line-of-sight is performed during automatic parking (“When the automatic parking function is turned on (S240), an appropriate parking candidate is determined and the driver selects it to perform automatic parking. If the current driver’s line of sight position and the driver's level of carelessness are not negligent in managing and supervising automatic parking (example of S245), automatic parking is performed as scheduled (S250).” ¶ 48.).
Additionally, Shigeta teaches: correct the line-of-sight angle when a driver starts a vehicle operation (“The flowchart in FIG. 13 [for correcting a line-of-sight angle of a driver] is started triggered by a turning-on operation of a key switch …. In the control idea shown in this flowchart, display for guiding the eye gaze of the driver is executed for a predetermined time (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes) from the key-on.” ¶ 157 and FIG. 13. See also ¶¶ 158-179 which provides discussion regarding the method disclosed in FIG. 13.).
Given this context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that incorporating the correcting a line-of-sight teachings of Hirata ’324 and Shigeta into Min would yield correcting a line-of-sight angle during Min’s automatic parking. That is, the teachings would necessarily start during automatic parking as that is the context in which the combination of prior art will work in; Shigeta especially provides context that correcting a line-of-sight would start at the start of a vehicle operation. And as to ending the processing when automatic parking ends, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that performing the teachings of Hirata ’324 and Shigeta outside of automatic parking would go against an ordinary understanding of engineering principles wherein control processes are not performed indefinitely but rather for a duration of an appropriate context. Indeed, to either prematurely end or indefinitely extend processing beyond an automatic parking would go against Min’s principles of performing on-going monitoring during automatic parking, and would degrade the accuracy of said monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the correction teachings at the start of and for the duration of Min’s automatic parking session.
As to claim 2, Min discloses: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to acquire a traveling direction of the vehicle in the automatic parking and set the region requiring visual recognition such that a region on a traveling direction side that has been acquired is included (“The automatic parking system (100) linked to driver inattention judgment according to one embodiment of the present invention compares the driver's expected gaze position and driver status for each parking position with the currently identified driver's gaze position and driver status when performing automatic parking at various parking positions, determines whether to allow the driver to control the vehicle during automatic parking and whether to continue performing automatic parking, and controls the vehicle according to the decision. For example, in the case of parallel parking on the left side, the driver's gaze should be on the left side mirror.” ¶ 36. Note: That is, as the traveling direction of the vehicle in automatic parking is towards the left, the region requiring visual recognition is on the traveling direction side since the driver must also face left.).
As to claim 4, Min fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display the start button at a position different from a previous position on the display screen.
Nevertheless, Hirata ’556 teaches: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display the start button at a position different from a previous position on the display screen (“The display processing unit 404 displays an assist start button B in a region near one of the plurality of types of peripheral images that is displayed at a position closest to a driver's seat. In this case, when there are parkable frames F2, the same number of the assist start buttons B as the number of the parkable frames F2 are provided at positions corresponding to the parkable frames F2, and the above-mentioned significant effect can be obtained.” ¶ 136 and FIG. 10. Note: As the position(s) and number of assist start buttons B depend on the position(s) and number of parkable frames in a given driving scenario, the position(s) of the assist start buttons B necessarily differ from other (including previous) driving scenarios.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Min to include the feature of: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to display the start button at a position different from a previous position on the display screen, as taught by Hirata ’556, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “provide an interface that makes an operation for starting the parking assist control intuitively intelligible and simple.” (Hirata ’556, ¶ 7.)
As to claim 5, the combination of Min and Hirata ’556 fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to detect a head position of the driver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate a line-of-sight angle from the detected head position and use the line-of-sight angle that has been estimated as the reference line-of-sight angle.
Nevertheless, Hirata ’324 teaches: detect a head position of the driver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate a line-of-sight angle from the detected head position and use the line-of-sight angle that has been estimated as the reference line-of-sight angle (“Note that the calibration model generating unit 103 may acquire multiple samples stored in association with information indicating the gaze target for calibration in cooperation with an external program. The user position corresponds to, for example, the center position of the user's head.” ¶ 30. Indeed, a reference line is determined based on expression “
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
x̃head” which “represents a position in a three-dimensional coordinate space that is a candidate for the user position” - ¶¶ 55-56; see also ¶¶ 65-69 providing further discussion pertaining to the role which
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
x̃head plays in the calibration process.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Min and Hirata ’556 to include the feature of: detect a head position of the driver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate a line-of-sight angle from the detected head position and use the line-of-sight angle that has been estimated as the reference line-of-sight angle, as taught by Hirata ’324, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for calibrating a line-of-sight device and thereby reducing measurement error. (See Hirata ’324, ¶¶ 7-8.)
The combination of Min, Hirata ’556 and Hirata ’324 fails to explicitly disclose: estimate a line-of-sight angle when the start button is visually recognized.
Nevertheless, Shigeta teaches: estimate a line-of-sight angle when the start button is visually recognized (“The display control apparatus 2 uses a display object displayed by the display unit 3 as a gaze target object.” ¶ 41. See also FIGS. 8-12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Min, Hirata ’556 and Hirata ’324 to include the feature of: estimate a line-of-sight angle when the start button is visually recognized, as taught by Shigeta, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “enabling accurate and prompt calibration of eye gaze direction detection information of a subject.” (Shigeta, ¶ 23.)
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to follow the rationale of Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results to perform a simple substitution of Hirata ’556’s start button for Shigeta’s display object to arrive at the claim limitation at issue. The substitution would have been predictable and have a reasonable expectation of success because Hirata ’556’s start button is also a display object which would be displayed in the same manner as Shigeta’s taught display objects. Performing this substitution would yield calibration of line-of-sight based on a display position of a start button. Therefore, the entire claim limitation would be yielded by the above-described simple substitution.
Claim 3 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Min in view of Hirata ’556, in view of Hirata ’324 and in view of Shigeta as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Adachi et al. (US20090118900A1; “Adachi”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to determine that the region requiring visual recognition is visually recognized when the region requiring visual recognition has been visually recognized continuously for a predetermined time or more after the automatic parking is started.
Nevertheless, Adachi teaches: determine that a region requiring visual recognition is visually recognized when the region requiring visual recognition has been visually recognized continuously for a predetermined time or more after the automatic parking is started (“If the time measured for the gaze time timer TA is greater than or equal to the gaze position confirmation time TS, i.e. when the driver continues to gaze at a position within the buffer section BS for TS or more (step S9: YES), the CPU 11 stores the center coordinates of the buffer section BS as a gaze position in the RAM 12.” ¶ 113 and FIG. 4. See also ¶ 114 which explains that the gaze position is tied towards a region for performing automatic parking.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta to include the feature of: determine that a region requiring visual recognition is visually recognized when the region requiring visual recognition has been visually recognized continuously for a predetermined time or more after the automatic parking is started, as taught by Adachi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “provide a parking assisting device and method that is easier to use or more user-friendly.” (Adachi, ¶ 4.)
Claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Min in view of Hirata ’556, in view of Hirata ’324 and in view of Shigeta as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Yoon (US20160132106A1; “Yoon”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is programmed to extract, when the driver operates the start button, the line-of-sight angle based on a time-series change of multiple detected line-of-sight angles.
Nevertheless, Yoon teaches: extract the line-of-sight angle, when a button is operated, based on a time-series change of multiple detected line-of-sight angles (“A menu selection apparatus using gaze tracking includes: a gaze tracker configured to track a gaze of a driver and to output time series gaze data; …; and a controller configured to extract the time series gaze data for a critical time based on button click timing as the click signal is output from the button and to then calculate an average of gaze vectors within each time series gaze data.” Abstract.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta to include the feature of: extract the line-of-sight angle, when a button is operated, based on a time-series change of multiple detected line-of-sight angles, as taught by Yoon, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for tracking a user’s gaze, especially in the context of operating a button in a vehicle context. (See Yoon, Abstract and ¶¶ 2-7.) As penned above, the combination of Min, Hirata ’556, Hirata ’324 and Shigeta yields the extraction of a line-of-sight when a driver operates the claimed start button; the incorporation of Yoon timeseries extraction dovetails with the cited combination given the overlap in subject matter.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 7-9 recite allowable subject matter notwithstanding the instant 101 rejections and their dependence on a rejected base claim. The claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims, and if the 101 issues are adequately resolved.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure:
James et al. (US20110169625A1) discusses at ¶¶ 16-17 that a required gaze time is require to classify an obstacle as perceived. However, James is silent as to adjusting a predetermined time for determining that a region requiring visual recognition has been visually recognized.
Ishikawa Masumi et al. (JP2014182628A) discloses at ¶ 32 that a level of monitoring, based on gaze data, varies with the weather (e.g., raining vs. fine weather). However, Ishikawa is silent as to adjusting a predetermined time for determining that a region requiring visual recognition has been visually recognized.
In general, the prior art is silent as to silent as to adjusting a predetermined time for determining that a region requiring visual recognition has been visually recognized based on the claimed factors (i.e., whether an obstacle exists, when ambient weather is rainy and when ambient surroundings are dark.)
CONCLUSION
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights