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 § 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.
Claims 13-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al., US 2019/0329761 A1, in view of Park, et al., US 2020/0070814 A1.
As per Claim 13, Kim teaches a vehicle guidance system for the at least partially automated parking of a motor vehicle in a transverse parking space delimited by an initial object and an end object (¶¶ 40-41; automated parking system 1 of Figure 1), the vehicle guidance system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to sense the transverse parking space, the initial object, and the end object (¶¶ 44-45); and
a control device (¶ 40; controller 200 of Figure 1) configured to:
determine a length of the transverse parking space between the initial object and the end object (¶ 62; as per length X1 of Figures 3 and 4).
Kim does not expressly teach aligning the motor vehicle relative to one of: the initial object and the end object, selected based on the determined length for a forward-transverse parking maneuver. Park teaches aligning the motor vehicle relative to one of: the initial object and the end object, selected based on the determined length for a forward-transverse parking maneuver (¶ 99; “the vehicle parking controlling apparatus 100 may generate a trajectory aligned with respect to the location and the slope of the second object 12” of Figures 3, 5A, 5B). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the sensor system of Kim with the path tracking and alignment system of Park, in order to reduce the probability that a host vehicle would collide with other vehicles or objects as the host vehicle parks in a space.
As per Claim 14, Kim teaches that the control device is further configured to, for the forward-transverse parking maneuver: compare the determined length with a length threshold value (¶¶ 12-13, 78-79; relative to “minimum spaced distance”).
Kim does not expressly teach: aligning the motor vehicle relative to the end object when the length is greater than the length threshold value, and aligning the motor vehicle relative to the initial object when the length is smaller than the length threshold value. Park teaches: aligning the motor vehicle relative to the end object when the length is greater than the length threshold value, and aligning the motor vehicle relative to the initial object when the length is smaller than the length threshold value (¶¶ 99, 119; either “with respect to a curb,” or “with respect to the location and the slope of the second object 12” of Figures 3, 5A and 5B). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 15, Kim teaches that the control unit is further configured to: determine from the determined length, whether the motor vehicle is aligned selectively either relative to the initial object or relative to the end object depending on a parking direction during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space (¶ 62; “the sensor unit may be configured to sense an alignment line of the surrounding vehicles 50 parked in parallel to assist in calculating the optimal parking area 20” as per Figures 3 and 5).
As per Claim 16, Kim teaches that the control unit is further configured to: compare the determined length with a first length threshold value and with a second length threshold value, wherein the second length threshold value is greater than the first length threshold value (¶¶ 80-81; as per minimum spaced distance d and critical distance b of Figures 12 and 13).
Kim does not expressly teach effecting a parking direction and/or an alignment of the motor vehicle relative to the initial object or relative to the end object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space depending on the comparison. Park teaches effecting a parking direction and/or an alignment of the motor vehicle relative to the initial object or relative to the end object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space depending on the comparison (¶¶ 99, 119; as per “a trajectory aligned with respect to the location and the slope of the second object 22” as per Figure 4). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 17, Kim does not expressly teach that the control unit is further configured to: selectively align the motor vehicle either relative to the initial object or relative to the end object depending on the parking direction during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space when it is determined that the length is greater than the first length threshold value and smaller than the second length threshold value. Park teach that the control unit is further configured to: selectively align the motor vehicle either relative to the initial object or relative to the end object depending on the parking direction during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space (¶¶ 99, 119; “the vehicle parking controlling apparatus 100 performs parking control to the parking target space 26 depending on the parking trajectory” as shown in Figure 1) when it is determined that the length is greater than the first length threshold value and smaller than the second length threshold value (¶ 98; after comparing vehicle length with “the length of the parking space”). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 18, Kim does not expressly teach that the control unit is further configured to: position the motor vehicle centrally in the transverse parking space between the initial object and the end object, during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space, irrespective of the parking direction when it is determined that the length is smaller than the first length threshold value. Park teaches that the control unit is further configured to: position the motor vehicle centrally in the transverse parking space between the initial object and the end object, during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space, irrespective of the parking direction when it is determined that the length is smaller than the first length threshold value (¶¶ 102-105; as shown in illustration 404 of Figure 6A, based on “’the overall width of the vehicle +(0.8 m)‘”). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 19, Kim does not expressly teach that the control unit is configured to: align the motor vehicle relative to the end object during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space irrespective of the parking direction when it is determined that the length is greater than the second length threshold value. Park teaches that the control unit is configured to: align the motor vehicle relative to the end object during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space irrespective of the parking direction when it is determined that the length is greater than the second length threshold value (¶¶ 98; after determining “that the length of the parking space scanned in ‘103’ of FIG. 3 is greater than ‘the overall length of a vehicle +2 m’”; see also Figure 5B). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 20, Kim teaches that the one or more sensors are further configured to: capture surroundings data in relation to the surroundings of the vehicle while the motor vehicle travels along a direction of travel past the initial object of the transverse parking space along the transverse parking space in the direction toward the end object (¶¶ 47, 62; with camera processor 110 of Figure 1 as part of calculating the optimal parking area 20 of Figure 3), and that the control unit is further configured to: detect the transverse parking space from the surroundings data, and determine the length of the transverse parking space along the direction of travel from the surroundings data (¶ 62; to determine length X1 and width Y1 as shown in Figure 3).
As per Claim 21, Kim teaches that the control unit is further configured to: determine a user input of a user of the motor vehicle a user interface (¶¶ 14, 54-57). Kim does not expressly teach determining a parking direction for the at Least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space on the basis of the user input. Park teaches determining a parking direction for the at Least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space on the basis of the user input (¶¶ 143, 146). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 22, Kim teaches that the control unit is further configured to: position the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space at a predefined lateral distance alongside the initial object (¶¶ 77-78; based on “critical distance” and minimum spaced distance” as measured values a, b and d lead to a “distance control amount” as shown in Figures 12 and 13), and/or align the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space depending on an alignment of the initial object, so as to: align the motor vehicle relative to the initial object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space, or position the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space at a predefined lateral distance alongside the end object, and/or align the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space depending on an alignment of the end object, so as to align the motor vehicle relative to the end object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space (¶¶ 78-79; as “minimum spaced distance control may be performed”).
As per Claim 24, Kim teaches a method for the at least partially automated parking of a motor vehicle in a transverse parking space that is delimited by an initial object and an end object (¶¶ 54-56), the method comprising: determining a length of the transverse parking space between the initial object and the end object (¶ 62; as per length X1 of Figures 3 and 4).
Kim does not expressly teach aligning the motor vehicle relative to the initial object or relative to the end object for a forward-transverse parking maneuver into the transverse parking space depending on the determined length. Park teaches aligning the motor vehicle relative to the initial object or relative to the end object for a forward-transverse parking maneuver into the transverse parking space depending on the determined length (¶ 99; “the vehicle parking controlling apparatus 100 may generate a trajectory aligned with respect to the location and the slope of the second object 12” of Figures 3, 5A, 5B). See Claim 13 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Barth, et al., US 2011/0093168 A1.
As per Claim 23, Kim and Park do not expressly teach that the control unit is further configured to: disregard a position and/or alignment of the end object during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space when the motor vehicle is aligned relative to the initial object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space, and disregard a position and/or alignment of the initial object during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space when the motor vehicle is aligned relative to the end object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space. Barth teaches that the control unit is further configured to: disregard a position and/or alignment of the end object during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space when the motor vehicle is aligned relative to the initial object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space (¶¶ 37-39; if predefined “distance a1 is dimensioned here in such a way that in the parked position G of the motor vehicle 1 entry and exiting of vehicle occupants on the front seat passenger's side 7 of the motor vehicle 1 is possible” as in Figures 2 and 4), and disregard a position and/or alignment of the initial object during the at least partially automated parking of the motor vehicle in the transverse parking space when the motor vehicle is aligned relative to the end object for the parking maneuver into the transverse parking space (¶¶ 42-44; if “distance a2 is dimensioned here in such a way that sufficient space for entry and exiting by the driver is also available next to the driver's side 6” as shown in Figure 3). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the sensor system of Kim with the path tracking and alignment system of Park and the measurement system of Barth, in order to reduce the risk of performing an unnecessary control step and improve passenger comfort as the vehicle parks in a space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661