DETAILED ACTION
This is the final Office action and is responsive to the papers filed 06/08/2026. The amendments filed on 06/08/2026 have been entered and considered by the examiner. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1-5 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been acknowledged. The Examiner has removed the 112(f) analysis.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the claims 1-5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 of claims 1-5 have not been withdrawn.
In pages 6-7 of the Applicant’s Argument, the Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the cited references do not disclose or teach a travel assistance device configured to "determine whether to continue or stop movement of the host vehicle toward the initial position along the route based on a comparison between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position and the stored detection result of the external sensor."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. From [0061], [0078] and [0087] of Yamazaki, the captured image and the map data are sequentially being compared to and detection in captured image is updated to map data to determine whether an obstacle would contact the vehicle when returning to the travel path. Thus, Yamazaki discloses the claimed features of claim 1 above.
Further, in [0059] of Oguro, Oguro teaches also to continuously compare captured image and past image to determine static obstacles that do not change in a short period and dynamic obstacles that do change in the short period. This peripheral environment or change over time (aka matching) is being evaluated to determine whether to stop the vehicle. Thus, Yamazaki in combination of Oguro would teach the claimed features of claims 2 and 3, unlike Applicants argument.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 20210255614 A1; hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses:
A travel assistance device (Fig. 2: parking support device 160) comprising a processor (Fig. 2: processor 170) configured to:
store a detection result of an external sensor installed in a host vehicle ([0056] “memory 165 stores..an image captured by the camera unit 131, a sensor value of the sonar unit 133”);
recognize a surrounding moving object based on a detection result of the external sensor ([0042] “The detection unit 130 includes one or a plurality of sensors configured to detect an obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and detect, for example, a distance between the detected obstacle 7 and the own-vehicle 5”);
store a route along which the host vehicle has moved based on vehicle information acquired by a vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”);
determine an initial position (Figs. 3-4: start position P1/middle position P2) at which the host vehicle has stopped before starting, based on the detection result stored in the detection result storage unit ([0062] “the parking support device 160 generates map data by recording, to the acquired map data, the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is input from the position acquisition unit 172, and the position of the obstacle 7, which is detected by the detection unit 130”); and
stop the host vehicle based on a recognition result after the host vehicle starts from the initial position ([0072] “when the own-vehicle 5 has been caused to temporarily stop traveling at the middle position P2, when the own-vehicle 5 has reached the target parking position P3, or when the own-vehicle 5 is emergently stopped upon determination that the own-vehicle 5 cannot evade contact with the obstacle 7 by continuing traveling”), wherein the processor is configured to:
store at least the initial position and the detection result on the route ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”), and
control movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position based on a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and the stored detection result of the external sensor ([0061] “The map generation unit 173 sequentially updates the current position of the own-vehicle 5 and the position and size of the obstacle 7 as pieces of registration information in map data based on the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is sequentially input from the position acquisition unit 172, and a detection result of the obstacle 7, which is sequentially input from the detection unit 130”, [0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”), and
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to continue or stop movement of the host vehicle toward the initial position along the route based on a comparison between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position and the stored detection result of the external sensor ([0061] “The map generation unit 173 sequentially updates the current position of the own-vehicle 5 and the position and size of the obstacle 7 as pieces of registration information in map data based on the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is sequentially input from the position acquisition unit 172, and a detection result of the obstacle 7, which is sequentially input from the detection unit 130”, [0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki discloses:
A travel assistance method comprising:
recognizing a surrounding moving object based on a detection result of an external sensor installed in a host vehicle ([0042] “The detection unit 130 includes one or a plurality of sensors configured to detect an obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and detect, for example, a distance between the detected obstacle 7 and the own-vehicle 5”);
storing a detection result of the external sensor ([0056] “memory 165 stores..an image captured by the camera unit 131, a sensor value of the sonar unit 133”);
storing a route along which the host vehicle has moved based on vehicle information acquired by a vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”);
determining an initial position (Figs. 3-4: start position P1) at which the host vehicle has stopped before starting based on the stored detection result ([0062] “the parking support device 160 generates map data by recording, to the acquired map data, the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is input from the position acquisition unit 172, and the position of the obstacle 7, which is detected by the detection unit 130”); and
stopping the host vehicle based on a recognition result after the host vehicle starts from the initial position ([0072] “when the own-vehicle 5 has been caused to temporarily stop traveling at the middle position P2, when the own-vehicle 5 has reached the target parking position P3, or when the own-vehicle 5 is emergently stopped upon determination that the own-vehicle 5 cannot evade contact with the obstacle 7 by continuing traveling”),
wherein at least the initial position and the detection result in the route are stored while storing the detection result of the external sensor ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”), and
wherein during the stopping of the host vehicle, movement on the route from a stop position at which the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position is controlled based on a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a stored detection result of the external sensor ([0061] “The map generation unit 173 sequentially updates the current position of the own-vehicle 5 and the position and size of the obstacle 7 as pieces of registration information in map data based on the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is sequentially input from the position acquisition unit 172, and a detection result of the obstacle 7, which is sequentially input from the detection unit 130”, [0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”), and the method further includes determining whether to continue or stop movement of the host vehicle toward the initial position along the route based on a comparison between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position and the stored detection result of the external sensor ([0061] “The map generation unit 173 sequentially updates the current position of the own-vehicle 5 and the position and size of the obstacle 7 as pieces of registration information in map data based on the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is sequentially input from the position acquisition unit 172, and a detection result of the obstacle 7, which is sequentially input from the detection unit 130”, [0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Oguro et al. (US 20200114917 A1; hereinafter Oguro).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to continue movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position ([0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”).
Yamazaki does not specifically disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to continue movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position in a case where a matching degree between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position of the host vehicle and the stored detection result of the external sensor exceeds a threshold.
However, Oguro discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to continue movement on the route ([0059] “whether to stop the vehicle”) in a case where a matching degree ([0059] “static information that does not change in a short period… dynamic information that changes in a short period”) between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position of the host vehicle and the stored detection result of the external sensor exceeds a threshold ([0059] “in accordance with the peripheral environment or change over time”).
Yamazaki and Oguro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki’s vehicle routing to further incorporate Oguro’s vehicle routing for the advantage of accounting dynamic changes indicating no change which results in safe vehicle navigation.
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to stop movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position ([0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0079] “traveling is impossible”).
Yamazaki does not specifically disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to stop movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position in a case where a matching degree between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position of the host vehicle and the stored detection result of the external sensor is less than a threshold.
However, Oguro discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to stop movement on the route ([0059] “whether to stop the vehicle”) in a case where a matching degree ([0059] “static information that does not change in a short period… dynamic information that changes in a short period”) between the detection result of the external sensor at the current position of the host vehicle and the stored detection result of the external sensor is less than a threshold ([0059] “in accordance with the peripheral environment or change over time”).
Yamazaki and Oguro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki’s vehicle routing to further incorporate Oguro’s vehicle routing for the advantage of accounting dynamic changes indicating a change which results in stopping vehicle navigation and collision prevention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Takahama et al. (US 20190025825 A1; hereinafter Takahama).
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki does not specifically disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to issue:
a notification for prompting switching from automatic control by the host vehicle to manual control by a driver after the host vehicle stops at the stop position; and
switch from the automatic control by the host vehicle to the manual control by the driver based on a switching instruction by the driver.
However, Takahama discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to issue:
a notification for prompting switching from automatic control by the host vehicle to manual control by a driver after the host vehicle stops at the stop position ([0063] “when being unable to continue the autonomous driving, the autonomous driving control apparatus stops the vehicle, and therefore can strongly prompt the driver to switch the running mode from the autonomous mode to the manual mode”); and
switch from the automatic control by the host vehicle to the manual control by the driver ([0060] “In step S20, the autonomous driving control controller 4 sets the running mode to the manual driving mode by the driving mode switching portion 4 a”) based on a switching instruction by the driver ([0059] “If the determination in step S19 is YES, the processing proceeds to step S20”).
Yamazaki and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki’s vehicle routing to further incorporate Takahama’s vehicle routing for the advantage of prompting the driver to take over when autonomous driving is difficult which results in safe and efficient vehicle navigation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights