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 reply to the response filed 30 March 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9-15 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 11-14 were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the objections. Accordingly, the objection of claims 1-3 and 11-14 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations of claim 11 and 13 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Applicant has not amended or argued the claim interpretation. Accordingly the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-16 were 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot some of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Accordingly, some of the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. However, some of the rejections of claims 1-3 and 12 are maintained and are repeated below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Applicant provides pertinent sections of the MPEP, points the examiner to portions of the specification including [0035-0036], and further points to table 1 for functions by AVP type. Specifically, [0035-0036] of the instant application states:
[0035]-[0036] of the present Application, in relevant
part, as follows: (1) "AVP type 1 denotes a motor-vehicle-centric AVP process"; and (2) "AVP type 2 denotes an infrastructure-centric AVP process."
This argument is not persuasive. First using Applicant’s definition in [0035-036] it is not clear what is meant by motor-vehicle-centric and infrastructure-centric processes. How does one determine if the process is motor-vehicle centric or infrastructure centric? Specifically when applying prior art the examiner provided reference to Schuller and Applicant argues (see response filed 30 March 2026, page 14-15) that Schuller teaches AVP type 2 driving, though Schuller clearly teaches the trajectory 8 is planned by the control device of the motor vehicle (Schuller [0038]). This appears to be AVP-1 type control based on Applicant’s arguments and the specification as emphasized by Applicant. This reinforces the examiner’s concern with regard to the scope of AVP-1 type and AVP-2 type driving.
While the examiner acknowledges table 1 provides examples AVP processes, the specification does not a special definition for each of the AVP processes. Further, it as noted in MPEP 2111.01 it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Further, as noted by the examiner in the rejection, it is not clear if each of the functions of an AVP type 1 are required to be carried out on the “AVP type 1 journey”. It is not clear if the journey requires one, several, or all of the functions of AVP type 1 to be a AVP type 1 journey? Applicant’s response does not address this concern. If Applicant intends for all of the features of an AVP 1 control to be required in the control of the vehicle for the “AVP type 1 journey” then the claim may be amended to recite each and every feature of AVP 1 control.
Independent claims 12 and 14 also recites AVP type 1 journey and/or AVP type 2 driving and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 3 recite “AVP type 2 driving” and is rejected for the same reasons. Accordingly, the rejection of claims Claim 1, 3, and 12 is maintained and a rejection to claim 14 is added.
Regarding the phrase “highly automated” in claim 1, the Applicant argues:
One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand that highly automated is not a relative term but is rather a term of art meaning operation with no, or little, human intervention.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. There are many levels of automated driving (SAE six levels of driving automation as known in the art) . It is not clear which level “highly automated” would correspond if, assuming arguendo, the examiner took Applicants definition of “highly automated” to be “no, or little human intervention”. Does this correspond to SAE Level 5 “Full Automation” which requires no human intervention, Level 4 “High Automation” which requires no human intervention in certain operation domains, or Level 3 “conditional Automation” wherein there is no human intervention unless the system requests? The examiner maintains that the limitation is a relative term. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-11 and 15-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 10-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuller et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0349838, hereinafter Schuller).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7-9, and 15-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuller et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0349838, hereinafter Schuller) in view of Yoon et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0148197, hereinafter Yoon).
Applicant’s arguments, see 14-16, filed 30 March 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, essentially adding the limitations of claim 2 to claim 1, the examiner has updated the rejection and the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a combination of Schuller and Kang. The examiner continues to use Schuller, specifically challenged in the argument and thus provides a response below to address Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues:
Schuller does not disclose an AVP type 1 journey as claimed in claim 1, as automated operation of the motor vehicle 1 of Schuller requires a central device 5 which is separate from the motor vehicle 1. For example, Schuller states "[f]inally, since the central device decides on the implementation of the planned trajectories, a defined system state and a predictable behavior of the vehicles can always be ensured." (emphasis added; paragraph [0014] of Schuller). Thus, paragraph [0014] of Schuller makes it clear that the final decision for automated operation of the motor vehicle 1 lies with the central device 5.
This examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant describes in table 1, in an AVP type 1 journey, the vehicle plans the route from a starting position to the target position (see second row of table). Schuller clearly teaches the trajectory 8 is planned by the control device of the motor vehicle (Schuller [0038]). Thus, this is AVP-1 type control as described by Applicant’s specification.
Applicants arguments regarding independent claim 12 and claim 14 are similar and are addressed by the examiner’s response above.
Finally, Applicant argues that because Yoon was not cited for the above teachings, it does not remedy the deficiencies in a 102 rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“An AVP system…configured to….” In claims 11 and 13. Structure can be found at least [0087].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “AVP type 1 journey”. It is not clear to the examiner what is the scope of a AVP type 1 journey. Does the AVP type 1 journey require AVP type 1 control during the entire journey, a portion of the journey? Further it is not clear if each of the functions of an AVP type 1 control are required to be carried out on the “AVP type 1 journey”. Does the journey require one, several, or all of the functions of AVP type 1 to be considered an AVP type 1 journey. The examiner notes that Applicant has provided a table describing functions for each of the AVP types, but Applicant has not provided a special definition. Further, the examiner notes that the Applicant has not provided the ISO26262 standard, but rather have provided their own summary of what they describe as the functions of each AVP type in Table 1. In the event that the definitions differ, the examiner is not certain if the scope of the claim refers to the AVP types defined in the standard or the table provided by the Applicant. The examiner notes that claim 12 and 14 also recites “AVP type 1 journey” and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 3 recites “AVP type 2 driving” and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites “highly automated” in line 1. The term “highly automated” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly automated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner notes that claims 1, 3, 12, and 14 recite “highly automated AVP type 1” and “highly automated AVP type 2” journey/ driving and they are rejected for the same reason. It is not clear what constitutes “highly automated”. For purposes of examination. The examiner will interpret highly automated as a vehicle that has some level of automated control.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “monitoring, on the infrastructure side, with one or more infrastructure environmental sensors, the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle on the basis of the received motor vehicle state data”. This limitation is wholly unclear. The claim appears to be claiming the monitoring is using infrastructure environment sensors and further claims that is on the basis of the received motor vehicle state data that was received from the motor vehicle as required in the first limitation. It is not clear how the monitoring can be on the basis of information received from the motor vehicle state data (transmitted by the motor vehicle) and the one or more infrastructure environment sensors. It is not clear if the monitoring is based on the received motor vehicle state data, the infrastructure sensors, or both the received data and the sensors.
Claim 4 recites “the plausibility”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 has been amended to recite “a motor vehicle comprising an Automated Valet Parking (AVP) system, the AVP system carries out a method for automated driving of the motor vehicle within a parking area using a motor vehicle AVP system of the motor vehicle”. As seen in the claim an AVP system has been introduced and a further AVP system of the motor vehicle is introduced. It is not clear to the examiner of the “motor vehicle AVP system” is the same or different than the “AVP system”.
Claims 3-11 and 15-16 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 13 depends from claim 12 and is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 12.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuller et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0349838, hereinafter Schuller).
Regarding claim 12, Schuller teaches a method for automated driving of a motor vehicle within a parking area using a motor vehicle Automated Valet Parking (AVP) system of the motor vehicle (see at least Schuller [0035] FIG. 1 shows a driving situation in which a motor vehicle 1 is to be parked automatically in an infrastructure facility 2, for example a parking garage.”), comprising the steps of:
at least a highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle driving within the parking area by way of the motor vehicle AVP system (see at least Schuller [0035] FIG. 1 shows a driving situation in which a motor vehicle 1 is to be parked automatically in an infrastructure facility 2, for example a parking garage.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17.” The examiner notes that Schuller describes AVP type 1 driving as the motor vehicle determines the route and trajectory to the parking location as described in at least [0042] “Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device.”); and
determining and transmitting motor vehicle state data, which describe a motor vehicle state during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, to an infrastructure AVP system by way of the motor vehicle AVP system during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey (see at least Schuller, [0036] “When driving into a driving area assigned to the infrastructure 2, the motor vehicle 1 communicates via the communication device 3 on the motor vehicle side and the communication device 4 of a central device 5 with the central device 5 in order to obtain information regarding the automatic guidance or to enable a coordination of the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 with other motor vehicles, such as the motor vehicle 9. A data exchange between the central device 5 and the motor vehicle 1 is carried out in particular repeatedly, for example, at fixed intervals. In this case, the motor vehicle can transmit to the central device 5, for example, its determined positions via a position-determining device 21, for example a satellite-based position-determining system, and/or its current driving speed and/or direction of travel. The position of the motor vehicle could also be determined by recognizing natural or artificial landmarks in environmental data. This can be recorded in digital map data, so that a vehicle position can be determined on the basis of the determination of a relative position of the motor vehicle with respect to, in particular; several landmarks.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17. In this case, a request for re-planning can be sent to the motor vehicle 1, where in particular the cause for the re-planning, that is to say the deviation from the planned trajectory 17, can also be transmitted.” The examiner notes that Schuller describes AVP type 1 driving as the motor vehicle determines the route and trajectory to the parking location as described in at least [0042] “Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device.” ).
Regarding claim 13, Schuller teaches an AVP system for the motor vehicle, which is configured to carry out all steps of the method as claimed in claim 12 (see at least Schuller, control device 7, communication device, 3, position determining device 21, actuator(not shown), and sensor system 10 of the motor vehicle 1 See Figure 1 and [0031] “In addition to the method according to the invention, the invention relates to a motor vehicle with a communication device for communication with a central device and a control device for at least partially automated guidance of the motor vehicle, where the control device is designed for carrying out the method according to the invention. The control device can control at least one actuator of the motor vehicle in order to guide the motor vehicle at least by partially automated means. Preferably, the motor vehicle has a sensor system on the motor vehicle side for detecting the motor vehicle environment and/or a position determining device for determining an intrinsic position of the motor vehicle. The intrinsic position can serve to locate the motor vehicle with respect to the predetermined map data. for additional support”).
Regarding claim 14, Schuller discloses a motor vehicle comprising:
an Automated Valet Parking (AVP) system (see at least Schuller, control device 7, communication device, 3, position determining device 21, actuator (not shown), and sensor system 10 of the motor vehicle 1, See Figure 1); the AVP system carries out a method for automated driving of the motor vehicle within a parking area using a motor vehicle AVP system of the motor vehicle system of the motor vehicle (see at least Schuller [0035] FIG. 1 shows a driving situation in which a motor vehicle 1 is to be parked automatically in an infrastructure facility 2, for example a parking garage) the method comprising the steps of:
at least a highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle driving within the parking area by way of the motor vehicle AVP system (see at least Schuller [0035] FIG. 1 shows a driving situation in which a motor vehicle 1 is to be parked automatically in an infrastructure facility 2, for example a parking garage.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17.” The examiner notes that Schuller describes AVP type 1 driving as the motor vehicle determines the route and trajectory to the parking location as described in at least [0042] “Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device.”); and
determining and transmitting motor vehicle state data, which describe a motor vehicle state during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, to an infrastructure AVP system by way of the motor vehicle AVP system during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey (see at least Schuller, [0036] “When driving into a driving area assigned to the infrastructure 2, the motor vehicle 1 communicates via the communication device 3 on the motor vehicle side and the communication device 4 of a central device 5 with the central device 5 in order to obtain information regarding the automatic guidance or to enable a coordination of the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 with other motor vehicles, such as the motor vehicle 9. A data exchange between the central device 5 and the motor vehicle 1 is carried out in particular repeatedly, for example, at fixed intervals. In this case, the motor vehicle can transmit to the central device 5, for example, its determined positions via a position-determining device 21, for example a satellite-based position-determining system, and/or its current driving speed and/or direction of travel. The position of the motor vehicle could also be determined by recognizing natural or artificial landmarks in environmental data. This can be recorded in digital map data, so that a vehicle position can be determined on the basis of the determination of a relative position of the motor vehicle with respect to, in particular; several landmarks.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17. In this case, a request for re-planning can be sent to the motor vehicle 1, where in particular the cause for the re-planning, that is to say the deviation from the planned trajectory 17, can also be transmitted.” The examiner notes that Schuller describes AVP type 1 driving as the motor vehicle determines the route and trajectory to the parking location as described in at least [0042] “Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device.” ).
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka (US Pub. No. 2020/0290601, hereinafter Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka discloses a method for monitoring, on an infrastructure side, and controlling a highly automated journey of a motor vehicle within a parking area, comprising:
receiving, on the infrastructure side, motor vehicle state data which are transmitted by the motor vehicle during an at least highly automated Automated Valet Parking (AVP) type 1 journey within the parking area and describe a motor vehicle state during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle (see at least Yamanaka Figure 5 and Figure 6, wherein an autonomous vehicle enters a parking lot and is controlled by either AVP1 or AVP2 type control, see the definitions provided in Yamanaka [0058-0059] wherein the first autonomous parking event is AVP2 and the second autonomous parking event is AVP1, See also in Figure 6 wherein the vehicle is traveling via self-driving AVP-1 due to an abnormality and upon fixing of the abnormality the infrastructure checks the state of the vehicle and transfers to AVP type 2 driving. For example [0090] “When it is determined that the abnormality occurring in the parking lot management device 400 has been eliminated in a state (B′) in which the host vehicle M is performing automated parking in an independent manner, the first autonomous parking controller 142 starts the first autonomous parking event and performs control for automated parking in accordance with the guidance of the parking lot management device 400.” See [0086-0092]) ;
monitoring, on the infrastructure side, with one or more infrastructure environmental sensors, the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle on the basis of the received motor vehicle state data (see at least Yamanaka [0090] “When it is determined that the abnormality occurring in the parking lot management device 400 has been eliminated in a state (B′) in which the host vehicle M is performing automated parking in an independent manner, the first autonomous parking controller 142 starts the first autonomous parking event and performs control for automated parking in accordance with the guidance of the parking lot management device 400.” See [0086-0092]) ; and
approving or refusing, on the infrastructure side, an at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving of the motor vehicle within the parking area on the basis of the monitoring of the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is operated according to the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey or the at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving based on the approval or refusal on the infrastructure side (see at least Yamanaka [0090] “When it is determined that the abnormality occurring in the parking lot management device 400 has been eliminated in a state (B′) in which the host vehicle M is performing automated parking in an independent manner, the first autonomous parking controller 142 starts the first autonomous parking event and performs control for automated parking in accordance with the guidance of the parking lot management device 400.” See [0086-0092])
.
Claim 12, 14, and 15-16 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon (US Pub. No. 2020/01481797, hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses a method for monitoring, on an infrastructure side, and controlling a highly automated journey of a motor vehicle within a parking area, comprising:
receiving, on the infrastructure side, motor vehicle state data which are transmitted by the motor vehicle during an at least highly automated Automated Valet Parking (AVP) type 1 journey within the parking area and describe a motor vehicle state during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle (see at least Yoon [0064] wherein the vehicle is in autonomous mode (AVP1) and the state of the vehicle is determined to transfer to infrastructure control (AVP2). See also [0073] “When the vehicle detects an obstacle, the vehicle applies an emergency brake according to its own determination. In addition, the vehicle reports to the infrastructure the emergency braking that is performed by itself or the type or location of an obstacle which is the cause of the emergency braking. The vehicle reduces its speed according to a predetermined deceleration value preset for the emergency braking.” The vehicle detecting an object and reacting is AVP1 level control as described by Applicant, see Table 1, Page 6 of instant specification ) ;
monitoring, on the infrastructure side, with one or more infrastructure environmental sensors, the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle on the basis of the received motor vehicle state data (see at least Yoon [0064] wherein the vehicle is in autonomous mode (AVP1) and the state of the vehicle is determined by the infrastructure to allow transfer to infrastructure control (AVP2) [0064] “An infrastructure identifies a driver and a vehicle and determines whether the driver and the vehicle are qualified. For example, the infrastructure determines whether the driver is a qualified driver by reading an identification number (ID) or a password input by the driver. In addition, the infrastructure determines whether the vehicle is a qualified vehicle by reading to a vehicle identification number of the vehicle. The vehicle can turn on and off the engine thereof by itself. The vehicle can turn on and off a power supply by itself. For example, a state in which the engine of the vehicle is turned off and the power supply is turned on is referred to as an accessary-on (ACC-On) state. The engine on/off and the power on/off of the vehicle are performed according to an instruction transmitted from the infrastructure or automatically performed without depending on the instruction transmitted from the infrastructure…” See also [0073] “The vehicle resumes autonomous driving or autonomous parking upon receiving a resumption instruction for the autonomous driving or autonomous parking from the infrastructure. Alternatively, the vehicle resumes the autonomous driving or autonomous parking when it confirms that the obstacle is removed.” ) ; and
approving or refusing, on the infrastructure side, an at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving of the motor vehicle within the parking area on the basis of the monitoring of the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is operated according to the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey or the at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving based on the approval or refusal on the infrastructure side ((see at least Yoon [0064] wherein it is determined by the infrastructure to allow transfer to infrastructure control (AVP2) as cited above See also [0073-0075] wherein it is determined if AVP2 type driving can be resumed )
Claim 12, 14, and 15-16 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuller et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0349838, hereinafter Schuller) in view of Kang et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0009111, hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 1, Schuller teaches a method for monitoring, on the infrastructure side, a highly automated journey of a motor vehicle within a parking area (see at least Schuller [0035] FIG. 1 shows a driving situation in which a motor vehicle 1 is to be parked automatically in an infrastructure facility 2, for example a parking garage.”), comprising:
receiving, on the infrastructure side, motor vehicle state data which are transmitted by the motor vehicle during an at least highly automated Automated Valet Parking (AVP) type 1 journey within the parking area and describe a motor vehicle state during the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle (see at least Schuller, [0036] “When driving into a driving area assigned to the infrastructure 2, the motor vehicle 1 communicates via the communication device 3 on the motor vehicle side and the communication device 4 of a central device 5 with the central device 5 in order to obtain information regarding the automatic guidance or to enable a coordination of the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 with other motor vehicles, such as the motor vehicle 9. A data exchange between the central device 5 and the motor vehicle 1 is carried out in particular repeatedly, for example, at fixed intervals. In this case, the motor vehicle can transmit to the central device 5, for example, its determined positions via a position-determining device 21, for example a satellite-based position-determining system, and/or its current driving speed and/or direction of travel. The position of the motor vehicle could also be determined by recognizing natural or artificial landmarks in environmental data. This can be recorded in digital map data, so that a vehicle position can be determined on the basis of the determination of a relative position of the motor vehicle with respect to, in particular; several landmarks.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17. In this case, a request for re-planning can be sent to the motor vehicle 1, where in particular the cause for the re-planning, that is to say the deviation from the planned trajectory 17, can also be transmitted.” The examiner notes that Schuller describes AVP type 1 driving as the motor vehicle determines the route and trajectory to the parking location as described in at least [0038] “On the basis of the received map data and the received target position, a planned trajectory 8, which brings the motor vehicle 1 to the target position 6 or approaching the target position 6, is planned by the control device 7 of the motor vehicle 1.” and [0042] “Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device.” ); and
monitoring, on the infrastructure side, [[with one or more infrastructure environmental sensors, ]]the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle on the basis of the received motor vehicle state data (see at least Schuller, [0036] “When driving into a driving area assigned to the infrastructure 2, the motor vehicle 1 communicates via the communication device 3 on the motor vehicle side and the communication device 4 of a central device 5 with the central device 5 in order to obtain information regarding the automatic guidance or to enable a coordination of the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 with other motor vehicles, such as the motor vehicle 9. A data exchange between the central device 5 and the motor vehicle 1 is carried out in particular repeatedly, for example, at fixed intervals. In this case, the motor vehicle can transmit to the central device 5, for example, its determined positions via a position-determining device 21, for example a satellite-based position-determining system, and/or its current driving speed and/or direction of travel. The position of the motor vehicle could also be determined by recognizing natural or artificial landmarks in environmental data. This can be recorded in digital map data, so that a vehicle position can be determined on the basis of the determination of a relative position of the motor vehicle with respect to, in particular; several landmarks.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17. In this case, a request for re-planning can be sent to the motor vehicle 1, where in particular the cause for the re-planning, that is to say the deviation from the planned trajectory 17, can also be transmitted.”); and
[[approving or refusing, on the infrastructure side, an at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving of the motor vehicle within the parking area on the basis of the monitoring of the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is operated according to the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey or the at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving based on the approval or refusal on the infrastructure side.]]
Schuller does not explicitly teach wherein teach monitoring, on the infrastructure side with one or more infrastructure environmental sensors and approving or refusing, on the infrastructure side, an at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving of the motor vehicle within the parking area on the basis of the monitoring of the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is operated according to the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey or the at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving based on the approval or refusal on the infrastructure side.
Kang discloses monitoring, on the infrastructure side with one or more infrastructure environmental sensors (see at least Kang [0058] [0079] and [0160] wherein it is determined if the vehicle is qualified for AVP 2-type control and the determination is made in part on data obtained from a camera (infrastructure sensor) [0058] “ In step (1), preparation operations of the infrastructure and the vehicle to start an automated valet parking procedure are performed. The infrastructure identifies a driver and a vehicle and determines whether the driver and the vehicle are qualified. For example, the infrastructure determines whether the driver is a qualified driver by reading an identification number (ID) or a password input by the driver. In addition, the infrastructure determines whether the vehicle is a qualified vehicle by reading an identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. The vehicle can turn on and off the engine by itself. The vehicle can turn on and off the power supply by itself. A state in which the engine of the vehicle is turned off but the power supply is turned on is referred to as an accessory-on (ACC-ON) state….” See also [0079] “In step (1), the vehicle 200 enters a parking lot and stops at a predetermined stop position. This stop position may be an entrance gate of the parking lot. The vehicle 200 notifies the infrastructure 100 of the arrival thereof. In step (2), the infrastructure 100 checks the size of the vehicle 200 and authenticates the vehicle 200 on the basis of an authentication ID of the vehicle 200.” and [0160] “The ready mode refers to a mode in which a check-in process is performed. In this mode, the infrastructure identifies the vehicle. In the mode, the driver still has the driving authority. In this mode, the vehicle may stay in the drop-off area (see FIG. 3) within the parking lot so that the infrastructure can identify the vehicle. Specifically, to identify the vehicle, the infrastructure reads the license plate of the vehicle using a camera installed in the parking lot” See also [0058] ) and approving or refusing, on the infrastructure side, an at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving of the motor vehicle within the parking area on the basis of the monitoring of the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is operated according to the at least highly automated AVP type 1 journey or the at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving based on the approval or refusal on the infrastructure side (see at least Kang [0058] “In step (1), preparation operations of the infrastructure and the vehicle to start an automated valet parking procedure are performed. The infrastructure identifies a driver and a vehicle and determines whether the driver and the vehicle are qualified. For example, the infrastructure determines whether the driver is a qualified driver by reading an identification number (ID) or a password input by the driver. In addition, the infrastructure determines whether the vehicle is a qualified vehicle by reading an identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. The vehicle can turn on and off the engine by itself. The vehicle can turn on and off the power supply by itself. A state in which the engine of the vehicle is turned off but the power supply is turned on is referred to as an accessory-on (ACC-ON) state.” See also Kang [0079] “In step (5), the infrastructure 100 determines whether to allow entry of the vehicle 200 into the parking lot on the basis of the received authentication ID. In step (6), the infrastructure 100 notifies the vehicle whether the vehicle 200 is permitted to enter the parking lot according to the results of the authentication.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuller with the teaching of Kang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Kang teaches, the vehicle has too meet certain qualifications to ensure the vehicle is capable of AVP, (see at least Kang [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach the method of claim 1,
wherein at least one handover condition is specified to the motor vehicle on the infrastructure side and is linked to the infrastructure-side approval of AVP type 2 driving, wherein on the infrastructure side whether the motor vehicle has met the specified at least one handover condition is checked, wherein, on the basis of a result of the infrastructure-side checking, a decision is made on the infrastructure side as to whether at least highly automated AVP type 2 driving of the motor vehicle within the parking area is approved or refused on the infrastructure side. (see at least Kang [0058] “In step (1), preparation operations of the infrastructure and the vehicle to start an automated valet parking procedure are performed. The infrastructure identifies a driver and a vehicle and determines whether the driver and the vehicle are qualified. For example, the infrastructure determines whether the driver is a qualified driver by reading an identification number (ID) or a password input by the driver. In addition, the infrastructure determines whether the vehicle is a qualified vehicle by reading an identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. The vehicle can turn on and off the engine by itself. The vehicle can turn on and off the power supply by itself. A state in which the engine of the vehicle is turned off but the power supply is turned on is referred to as an accessory-on (ACC-ON) state. The engine on/off and the power supply on/off of the vehicle are performed according to instructions transmitted from the infrastructure or automatically performed without depending on the instructions transmitted from the infrastructure. The vehicle can lock and unlock the doors by itself. The locking and unlocking of the vehicle doors are performed according to instructions transmitted from the infrastructure or are autonomously performed by the vehicle without depending on the instructions transmitted from the infrastructure.” This corresponds to approval disapproval. See also [0069] and [0079] “In step (5), the infrastructure 100 determines whether to allow entry of the vehicle 200 into the parking lot on the basis of the received authentication ID. In step (6), the infrastructure 100 notifies the vehicle whether the vehicle 200 is permitted to enter the parking lot according to the results of the authentication. For example, the infrastructure 100 display a message indicating approval or disapproval on a display panel installed around the stop position.” The examiner notes that Kangs description of control is an AVP type 2 process wherein the infrastructure determines the route and trajectory to the target parking spot. See [0061] for support for AVP type 2 “ In step (2), a target position, a guide route, and a driving route are determined. The determinations of the target position, the guide route, and the driving route are made by the infrastructure. The target position, the guide route, and the driving route determined by the infrastructure are delivered from the infrastructure to the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach method of claim 1, wherein the infrastructure-side monitoring comprises checking the plausibility of the motor vehicle state data (see at least Schuller [0040-0041] “The processing device 11 of the central device 5 then evaluates a release condition, the meeting of which depends on whether the planned trajectory 8 is likely to be drivable according to the data collected in the central device or if driving on the planned trajectory 8 is likely to hinder driving movement of other motor vehicles 9. Information which is not initially available in the motor vehicle 1 is present in the central device 5. On the one hand, sensor data of a sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side can be detected, with which, for example, the motor vehicle 9 and its direction of travel and speed can already be detected. In order to enable an efficient coordination of the driving operation of several motor vehicles 1, 9, positions and/or speeds of the motor vehicles 1, 9 and in particular also driving intentions, for example planned trajectories or currently driven trajectories, can be transmitted to the central device. Based on this information, it is determined whether the planned trajectory 8 is likely to be drivable or is appropriate in the context of a coordination of motor vehicles 1, 9. If this is the case, then the release condition is met and the central device 5 transmits a release message to the motor vehicle 1. Upon receipt of this release message, the control device 7 can activate the actuator, not shown, in order to guide the motor vehicle along the planned trajectory 8…[0041] As explained above, however, the planned trajectory 8 is not passable in the present case, which is why the release condition is not met. The central device 5 thus sends a modification message to the motor vehicle 1 in order to instruct the motor vehicle or its control device 7 to determine another planned trajectory.” See also [0044] “In addition, motor vehicle data describing driving possibilities, dimensions or the like of the motor vehicle can be taken into account. For example, it is possible to check whether the proposed trajectory is drivable with the available acceleration and braking potential of the motor vehicle 1, the turning circle and the dimensions thereof. If the control device 7 determines that the proposed trajectory is likely to be drivable, it can be adopted as a planned trajectory and corresponding planning data, which can also only indicate that the planned trajectory corresponds to the proposed trajectory, can be transmitted to the central device 5 in order to await a final release. If the proposed trajectory is not directly drivable, it can be varied in order to arrive at a planned trajectory.”)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach method of claim 1, wherein the infrastructure-side monitoring comprises checking whether the motor vehicle adheres to at least one predetermined specification and/or at least one predetermined rule (see at least Schuller, wherein the rule is whether the motor vehicle’s path must be drivable to be released, see at least Schuller [0040-0041] “The processing device 11 of the central device 5 then evaluates a release condition, the meeting of which depends on whether the planned trajectory 8 is likely to be drivable according to the data collected in the central device or if driving on the planned trajectory 8 is likely to hinder driving movement of other motor vehicles 9. Information which is not initially available in the motor vehicle 1 is present in the central device 5. On the one hand, sensor data of a sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side can be detected, with which, for example, the motor vehicle 9 and its direction of travel and speed can already be detected. In order to enable an efficient coordination of the driving operation of several motor vehicles 1, 9, positions and/or speeds of the motor vehicles 1, 9 and in particular also driving intentions, for example planned trajectories or currently driven trajectories, can be transmitted to the central device. Based on this information, it is determined whether the planned trajectory 8 is likely to be drivable or is appropriate in the context of a coordination of motor vehicles 1, 9. If this is the case, then the release condition is met and the central device 5 transmits a release message to the motor vehicle 1. Upon receipt of this release message, the control device 7 can activate the actuator, not shown, in order to guide the motor vehicle along the planned trajectory 8…[0041] As explained above, however, the planned trajectory 8 is not passable in the present case, which is why the release condition is not met. The central device 5 thus sends a modification message to the motor vehicle 1 in order to instruct the motor vehicle or its control device 7 to determine another planned trajectory.” See also [0044] “In addition, motor vehicle data describing driving possibilities, dimensions or the like of the motor vehicle can be taken into account. For example, it is possible to check whether the proposed trajectory is drivable with the available acceleration and braking potential of the motor vehicle 1, the turning circle and the dimensions thereof. If the control device 7 determines that the proposed trajectory is likely to be drivable, it can be adopted as a planned trajectory and corresponding planning data, which can also only indicate that the planned trajectory corresponds to the proposed trajectory, can be transmitted to the central device 5 in order to await a final release. If the proposed trajectory is not directly drivable, it can be varied in order to arrive at a planned trajectory.” See also [0042] “The central device 5 can transmit a trajectory rule to the motor vehicle 1, which to be met by the planned trajectory. In the example shown, it could be transmitted as a trajectory rule, for example, that the subarea 16 is a blocked area, the planned trajectory is then determined such that the motor vehicle is continuously located outside the blocked area when guided in accordance with the planned trajectory. … Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device. Since, as far as can be recognized by the central device 5, this trajectory is drivable and does not hinder any further motor vehicles 9, the central device 5 subsequently transmits a release message to the motor vehicle 1, after which the automated driving operation along the trajectory 17 can be started.”) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the infrastructure-side monitoring comprises checking whether the motor vehicle follows a target route transferred to the motor vehicle on the infrastructure side within a predetermined tolerance range and/or follows a target trajectory transferred to the motor vehicle on the infrastructure side within a predetermined tolerance range (see at least Schuller [0045] “During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17. In this case, a request for re-planning can be sent to the motor vehicle 1, where in particular the cause for the re-planning, that is to say the deviation from the planned trajectory 17, can also be transmitted.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach the method of claim 4, including wherein the infrastructure-side monitoring comprises checking whether the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle state data of which have been received on the infrastructure side, is a motor vehicle which is expected on the infrastructure side as part of an AVP process see at least Kang [0058] In step (1), preparation operations of the infrastructure and the vehicle to start an automated valet parking procedure are performed. The infrastructure identifies a driver and a vehicle and determines whether the driver and the vehicle are qualified. For example, the infrastructure determines whether the driver is a qualified driver by reading an identification number (ID) or a password input by the driver. In addition, the infrastructure determines whether the vehicle is a qualified vehicle by reading an identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. The vehicle can turn on and off the engine by itself. The vehicle can turn on and off the power supply by itself. A state in which the engine of the vehicle is turned off but the power supply is turned on is referred to as an accessory-on (ACC-ON) state. The engine on/off and the power supply on/off of the vehicle are performed according to instructions transmitted from the infrastructure or automatically performed without depending on the instructions transmitted from the infrastructure. The vehicle can lock and unlock the doors by itself. The locking and unlocking of the vehicle doors are performed according to instructions transmitted from the infrastructure or are autonomously performed by the vehicle without depending on the instructions transmitted from the infrastructure.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach the method of claim 7, wherein, if an abnormality in the behavior of the motor vehicle is detected on the infrastructure side on the basis of the monitoring and/or if an error in the behavior of the motor vehicle is detected on the infrastructure side on the basis of the monitoring, at least one action is carried out on the infrastructure side in order to react to the detected abnormality and/or the detected error. (see at least Kang [0067] and [0076] which teaches the infrastructure determines an error and transmits an emergency stop and also releases the emergency stop [0067]“ In step (8), an error control operation is performed. The error control is performed when an error occurs in communication between the vehicle and the infrastructure and/or when a mechanical error of the vehicle occurs. The infrastructure monitors communication with the vehicle to detect whether a communication error occurs. … The vehicle resumes autonomous parking or autonomous driving according to an instruction received from the infrastructure when the vehicle is in an emergency stop state. Alternatively, the vehicle may determine, by itself, whether the cause of the emergency braking is removed and resumes autonomous parking or autonomous driving when the cause of the emergency parking is removed.” [0076] In step (8), an emergency brake instruction is transmitted to the vehicle from the infrastructure.” See Figure 5 )
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach method of claim 8, wherein the at least one action is an element selected from the following group of actions: informing the motor vehicle about the detected abnormality and/or the detected error, transmitting an emergency stop command to the motor vehicle, informing service personnel for the parking area about what is detected, informing one or more road users located within the parking area (see at least Kang [0067] and [0076] which teaches the infrastructure determines an error and transmits an emergency stop and also releases the emergency stop [0067]“ In step (8), an error control operation is performed. The error control is performed when an error occurs in communication between the vehicle and the infrastructure and/or when a mechanical error of the vehicle occurs. The infrastructure monitors communication with the vehicle to detect whether a communication error occurs. … The vehicle resumes autonomous parking or autonomous driving according to an instruction received from the infrastructure when the vehicle is in an emergency stop state. Alternatively, the vehicle may determine, by itself, whether the cause of the emergency braking is removed and resumes autonomous parking or autonomous driving when the cause of the emergency parking is removed.” [0076] In step (8), an emergency brake instruction is transmitted to the vehicle from the infrastructure.” See Figure 5 )
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach the method claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle state is described by at least one kinematic variable, the at least one kinematic variable includes at least one of location, speed, acceleration, jerk, and/or by a route of the motor vehicle and/or by a trajectory of the motor vehicle (see at least Schuller, [0036] “When driving into a driving area assigned to the infrastructure 2, the motor vehicle 1 communicates via the communication device 3 on the motor vehicle side and the communication device 4 of a central device 5 with the central device 5 in order to obtain information regarding the automatic guidance or to enable a coordination of the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 with other motor vehicles, such as the motor vehicle 9. A data exchange between the central device 5 and the motor vehicle 1 is carried out in particular repeatedly, for example, at fixed intervals. In this case, the motor vehicle can transmit to the central device 5, for example, its determined positions via a position-determining device 21, for example a satellite-based position-determining system, and/or its current driving speed and/or direction of travel. The position of the motor vehicle could also be determined by recognizing natural or artificial landmarks in environmental data. This can be recorded in digital map data, so that a vehicle position can be determined on the basis of the determination of a relative position of the motor vehicle with respect to, in particular; several landmarks.” See also [0045] During the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 along the planned trajectory 17 it is continuously determined whether re-planning of the planned trajectory 17 is required. A corresponding re-planning is required, for example, when the central device 5 recognizes from the received position or speed data of the motor vehicle 1 and/or from the sensor system 12, 24 on the infrastructure side that the driving operation of the motor vehicle 1 deviates from the planned trajectory 17. In this case, a request for re-planning can be sent to the motor vehicle 1, where in particular the cause for the re-planning, that is to say the deviation from the planned trajectory 17, can also be transmitted.” The examiner notes that Schuller describes AVP type 1 driving as the motor vehicle determines the route and trajectory to the parking location as described in at least [0042] “Based on the explained trajectory rules, the motor vehicle can determine the planned trajectory 17 and transmit it to the central device.” ).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schuller and Kang teach the an AVP system for the parking area, which is configured to carry out all steps of the method as claimed in claim 1 (see at least Schuller [0032-33] “In addition, the invention relates to a central device with a communication device for communication with at least one motor vehicle and a processing device controlling the communication device, where the processing de-vice is set up for carrying out the method according to the invention. The central device preferably includes a sensor system on the infrastructure side or a sensor system on the infrastructure side provides information to the central device… [0033] The motor vehicle according to the invention and the central device according to the invention can be further developed with the features described for the method according to the invention with the advantages explained there, and vice versa.”)
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Schuller teaches a processing device that carries out the method (see at least Schuller Figure 1, processing device 11 of central device 5 [0032] In addition, the invention relates to a central device with a communication device for communication with at least one motor vehicle and a processing device controlling the communication device, where the processing de-vice is set up for carrying out the method according to the invention. The central device preferably includes a sensor system on the infrastructure side or a sensor system on the infrastructure side provides information to the central device.”.) However, Schuller does not explicitly disclose a computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the latter to carry out a method of claim 1, nor a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program as claimed in claim 15 is stored.
Kang teaches disclose a computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the latter to carry out the method of claim 1, nor a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program as claimed in claim 15 is stored (see at least Kang [0046] “That is, the determination unit 230 refers to a device that performs a series of calculations or makes a series of determinations to control the vehicle 200 and to perform automated valet parking. For example, the determination unit 230 is a processor that operates according to a computer program including instructions for performing automated valet parking.” See also [0179-0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuller with the teaching of Kang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Kang teaches processing devices require computer programs including instructions stored on storage media in order to execute processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20230211774-A1 to Rink et al. is cited for disclosing an automated parking system that includes transitioning to AVP type 2 parking (see at least [0004] [0012]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights