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 .
Claims 1 thru 9 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Cross Reference section of the specification, application number 18/132033 is recited and does not include the patent number. This application has since become Patent Number 12,100,227 and the patent number should be included to improve the quality of the document.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, “said controller is configured to newly extract more than or equal to one and less than or equal to a same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image” (lines 3 thru 5). The wording of this limitation is confusing because control newly extracts at least one and another number that may be one, or may be another higher number. It is unclear if at least one feature point is extract, if no feature points are extracted if none are erased, or if it is merely the number of erased feature points. It appears that having an erased feature point would be at least one, because claim 1 requires that one or more feature points are erased. The examiner suggest amending the claim language to “said controller is configured to newly extract at least one of the feature points up to a same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image” (or similar).
Claim 5 recites, “a same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image” in lines 3 and 4, while claim 4 also recites “a same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear if this is a new same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image, or the equivalent same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image. The examiner assumes it is the equivalent same number of feature points as said erased one or more feature points from said captured image for continued examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feijoo et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0339195 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Feijoo et al disclose the claimed parking assist apparatus, “an automatic parking system of a vehicle for automatically parking the vehicle in a parking slot” P[0010], comprising:
the claimed camera capable of taking an image of a surrounding of a vehicle, “The sensor arrangement 2 comprises a camera for visually detecting the environment of the vehicle 1 along the trajectory 7” P[0072]; and
the claimed controller, “executed on a processor, induce an automatic parking system of a vehicle for automatically parking the vehicle in a parking slot to perform the steps” P[0054], configured to:
the claimed extract feature points from a captured image where a region in which a driver of the vehicle desires to register a parking position and a vicinity are captured, “detecting information of features of the environment of the vehicle corresponding to the driven trajectory” P[0057];
the claimed register the extracted feature points in association with the parking position to register the parking position as a registered parking position, “storing the driven trajectory in a digital map of the environment” P[0058], and “storing feature descriptors of detected features of the environment in the digital map” P[0059];
the claimed when determined that a feature point is detectable for the captured image when the vehicle in in the vicinity of the registered parking position, identify the registered parking position by detecting the feature point, “detecting information of features of the environment of the vehicle corresponding to the driven trajectory” P[0060], and “matching feature descriptors of the detected features of the environment with the feature descriptors stored in the digital map” P[0061];
the claimed perform automatic parking control or assisted parking control to the identified registered parking position, “re-localizing the vehicle against the trajectory stored in the digital map in order to navigate the vehicle along the stored trajectory into the parking slot” P[0062];
the claimed perform parking assist control without using feature points which are not detected from the captured image among the feature points which have been registered in association with the registered parking position, the parking is performed based on the stored map (not the detected features of the environment P[0062]; and
the claimed when the feature points are not detected owing to condition change with time of corresponding positions, erase the feature points from a group of registered feature points, “counting the matches of the feature descriptors of the detected features of the environment with the feature descriptors stored in the digital map for each feature descriptor” P[0063], and “deleting a feature descriptor stored in the digital map if the number of matches for this feature descriptor does not exceed a predefined threshold after a predefined number of repetitions of the step of automatically driving the vehicle into the parking slot” P[0064].
Regarding claim 2 Feijoo et al disclose the claimed parking assist apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein the control is configured to:
the claimed when a non-detected situation has occurred, the non-detected situation being feature points among the registered feature points are not detected from the captured image in identifying the registered parking position while the parking assist control is being performed, erase the feature points from the group of the registered feature points, “counting the matches of the feature descriptors of the detected features of the environment with the feature descriptors stored in the digital map for each feature descriptor” P[0063], and “deleting a feature descriptor stored in the digital map if the number of matches for this feature descriptor does not exceed a predefined threshold after a predefined number of repetitions of the step of automatically driving the vehicle into the parking slot” P[0064].
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feijoo et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0339195 A1.
Regarding claim 9 Feijoo et al teach the claimed parking assist apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein Feijoo et al do not explicitly teach the claimed when the non-detected situation has occurred owing to a feature point not being included in a capturing area of the captured image, not to erase this feature point from the group of the registered feature points. But a feature point that is not detected because the point is out of range of the sensor (claimed non-detected situation), would not be deleted because it is not near to the trajectory to the parking slot of Feijoo et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand not to delete feature points merely because they are out of a range of the sensor. Feijoo et al would not erase feature points that are distant from the trajectory to the parking spot because those points may be relative to another stored parking spot (different from the planned parking control spot). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automatic parking system of Feijoo et al with the not deleting feature points that are not relevant to the current planned trajectory for parking in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, extend the lifetime of the trained system and reduce the occurrences of required retraining.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 thru 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are re-arranged from the independent and dependent claim limitations of the Patent. Additionally, the pending claims are written broader than the patented claims.
Claims 1 thru 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,651,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are re-arranged from the independent and dependent claim limitations of the Patent. Additionally, the pending claims are written broader than the patented claims.
Related Art
The examiner points to Ogata et al PGPub 2020/0074192 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Ogata et al is directed to eliminating line features during mapping (Figures 9A thru 9F).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662