DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 66 recites “step S50” should be corrected to “step S150”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the term “and/or” in connection with claim limitations. The term “and” and “or” dictate exclusive and alternative limitations, respectively, and should only be limited using one or the other. The claims have been examined using only the “or” term in which the alternatives are given proper consideration. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “parking row recognition section”, “parking lot staying determination section”, “erroneous operation determination section”, and “control section” in claim 1; “travel path prediction section” in claim 2; “inter parking row corridor” in claim 3; “structure recognition section” and “provisional parking row recognition section” in claims 4-7.
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. Corresponding structure for the above-noted “section” is described as an ECU 10 in Figure 1.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it claims a “program” which is not one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukata et al. (US 2015/0321555 A1) (Fukata hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Fukata discloses a driving assistance apparatus comprising:
a parking row recognition section which detects a parking slot(s) and/or parked vehicle(s) around an own vehicle on the basis of image data of a captured image around the own vehicle and recognizes a parking row in which the detected parking slot(s) and/or the detected parked vehicle(s) are located in succession and adjacent to each other in a predetermined direction and the number of the parking slot(s) and/or the parked vehicle(s) is equal to or greater than a predetermined first threshold number ([0020] – [0022] and [0065], the reference discloses using captured images to detect its surroundings such as parking slots and other parked vehicles adjacent to each other);
a parking lot staying information section which determines whether or not the own vehicle is present in a parking lot having the parking row ([0099] – [0100], the reference discloses detection logic that determines the presence of the vehicle within a defined parking area based on sensors and image data);
an erroneous operation determination section which obtain an operation state of an acceleration operation element operated by an occupant of the own vehicle and determines, on the basis of the operation state, whether or not the occupant has performed an erroneous operation of erroneously stepping on the acceleration operation element ([0007], [0023] – [0025] and [0253], the reference describes detection of unintended pedal operation using sensor input and operation patterns to distinguish intentional vs erroneous inputs); and
a control section which executes driving power reduction control of reducing driving power of the own vehicle when the parking lot staying determination section determines that the own vehicle is present in the parking lot and the erroneous operation determination section determines that the occupant has performed the erroneous operation ([0010], [0023] – [0025] and [0253], the reference discloses a control module that reduces driving power reduction based on processing outputs from sensor inputs).
Regarding claim 2, Fukata discloses a driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above, further comprising:
a travel path prediction section which predicts a travel path of the own vehicle on the basis of a travel state of the own vehicle, wherein the parking lot staying determination section determines that the own vehicle is present in the parking lot when the predicted travel path intersects with the parking row ([0246] – [0247], the reference includes direction of travel detection and steering angle measurement which is has path prediction capabilities).
Regarding claim 3, Fukata discloses a driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above, further comprising:
an inter parking row corridor determination section which determines, as an inter parking row corridor, an area between a plurality of parking rows which are recognized by the parking row recognition section, face each other with the own vehicle intervening therebetween, and have a predetermined positional relation, wherein the parking lot staying determination section determines that the own vehicle is present in the parking lot when the own vehicle is located in the area ([0100] – [0102]).
Regarding claim 8, the elements contained in claim 8 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a method rather than an apparatus and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claim 9, the elements contained in claim 9 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a program rather than an apparatus and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights