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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 14-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2022/0073101).
As per claim 1, Wang et al. disclose a vehicle (100, figure 1A, paragraph 0058), comprising:
an output device (1080, figure 10) configured to communicate to a driver of the vehicle (paragraph 0019); and
an in-vehicle control system (270, paragraph 0084) configured to:
evaluate one or more trigger inputs including at least one of a current dynamic state (initial state, paragraphs 0014 and 0058) of the vehicle or an attribute of an environment of the vehicle (paragraph 0073);
process the one or more trigger inputs according to a dynamic model (kinematic model) having a state with a time-dependent response to changes in the one or more trigger inputs (paragraphs 0066-0067);
evaluate the state of the dynamic model with respect to a threshold condition (paragraphs 0018-0019, 0088 and 0098); and
in response to the dynamic model satisfying the threshold condition, provide guidance (heuristic guidance) to the driver through the output device (paragraphs 0109, 0113, 0115, 0155, 0165).
As per claim 2, Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include acceleration of the vehicle (paragraphs 0066 and 0131).
As per claim 3, Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include a steering angle of the vehicle (paragraphs 0063, 0066).
As per claim 4, Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include a derivative of acceleration (a sub v) of the vehicle (paragraph 0066).
As per claim 5 Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include outputs of one or more sensors of the vehicle (paragraph 0073).
As per claim 6, Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include information describing obstacles detected using one or more sensors of the vehicle (paragraphs 0071-0072).
As per claim 7, Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include information describing markings detected using one or more cameras of the vehicle (paragraphs 0071-0072).
As per claim 8, Wang et al. disclose the one or more trigger inputs include data
describing one or more of traffic congestion, construction, or parking locations in proximity to the vehicle (paragraphs 0058, 0071 and 0086).
As per claim 9, Wang et al. disclose the guidance is parking assistance (see abstract and paragraph 0071).
As per claims 14-16, The method of claims 14-16 are essentially the same in scope as system claims 1-7 above and are rejected similarly.
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) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Usui (US 2020/0324701).
As per claim 10, Wang et al. disclose the parking assistance being a display of a top-down view of the vehicle and surroundings of the vehicle generated from outputs of a plurality of cameras of the vehicle. Usui discloses a display processing system (1, figure 1) mounted on a vehicle, includes an electronic control unit (ECU, 3) for receiving outputting signals representing captured images from a plurality of cameras (21-24) and surrounding vehicle information signals from various sensors (25), wherein the ECU (3) generates top-down view (bird’s-eye images) of the vehicle and surrounding of the vehicle on a display device (4, paragraphs 0030-0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the system as taught by Usui in a system as disclosed by Wang et al. for the purpose of displaying a top-down view of the vehicle and surrounding of the vehicle to the driver to enable the driver sees obstacle in the view of the driving course.
As per claim 17, The method of claim 17 is essentially the same in scope as system claim 10 above and is rejected similarly.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Chawda et al. (US 2017/0153737).
As per claim 11, Wang et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the dynamic model is a model of a spring-mass-damper system. Chawda et al. disclose a accelerometer data being detected by a dynamic inertial model to determine estimated force sensor, wherein the dynamic inertial model being based on a spring-mass-damper model (paragraph 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the spring-mass-damper model as taught by Chawda et al. in a system as disclosed by Wang et al. for the purpose of determining acceleration data in order to provide guidance to the driver during the driving course.
As per claim 18, The method of claim 18 is essentially the same in scope as system claim 11 above and is rejected similarly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 December 30, 2025