DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated March 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/105,496 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 are broader and obvious variants of the claims of copending Application No. 18/105,496.
For example, claim 1, lines 5 and 6 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 recite “storing a traveling route traveled by the vehicle according to the driving operation of the user in a training traveling mode”. Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/105,496 recites “storing a traveling route traveled by the vehicle according to a driving operation of a user in a training traveling mode”, see claim 1, lines 3 and 4 dated December 20, 2024.
Claim 1, lines 9 and 10 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 recite “displaying a target route from the traveling start position to the target parking position in an automatic traveling mode”. Claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/105,496 recites “displaying of the target route, superimposing the target route in the automatic traveling mode on the traveling route in the training traveling mode.” Note, the stored traveling route in the training traveling mode can be the same as, or different from, the target route in the automatic traveling mode.
Claim 1, lines 11 and 12 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 recite “wherein the target route in the automatic traveling mode is shorter than the traveling route in the training traveling mode”. Claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/105,496 recites “wherein the target route is a shortcut route of the traveling route.”, see claim 4, dated December 20, 2024.
Claim 1, lines 12-15 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 recite “and a first number of turns of the vehicle in the training traveling mode is same as a second number of turns of the vehicle in the automatic traveling mode, the traveling route includes a first turning point at a first position, and the target route does not include the first turning point at the first position.” With respect to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/105,496, the stored traveling route in the training traveling mode can be the same as the target route in the automatic traveling mode. That is, a first number of turns of the vehicle in the training traveling mode is same as a second number of turns of the vehicle in the automatic traveling mode. In addition, claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/105,496 recites “wherein the target route is a shortcut route of the traveling route.”, see claim 4, dated December 20, 2024. That is, the route can be slightly left or right of the traveling route which keeps the target route’s turning points/positions off the traveling route’s turning points/positions.
Although copending Application No. 18/105,496 does not disclose displaying the traveling route from a traveling start position to a target parking position in the training traveling mode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Iwama (US 2018/0246515 A1) into copending Application No. 18/105,496.
For example, Iwama teaches providing the driver with feedback. Iwama teaches a system that displays the traveling route from a traveling start position to a target parking position in the training traveling mode (see at least [0092] | [0075]). One of ordinary skill in the art clearly recognizes that this provides the driver with immediate visual feedback as to what their learned route looks like.
Claims 2-7 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 correspond to claims 2-7 of copending Application No. 18/105,496.
As outlined above, independent claim 8 of currently pending Application No. 18/891,863 would correspond to independent claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/105,496.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-5, 7-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (DE 102019115712 A1) in view of Iwama (US 2018/0246515 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses a driving assistance method of performing automatic traveling of a vehicle based on a driving operation of a user (see at least Figures 1-3 | [0001]), the driving assistance method comprising:
storing a traveling route traveled by the vehicle according to the driving operation of the user in a training traveling mode (see at least Figure 2, items TR=26→24→22 | [0039] note the traveling route (TR) corresponds to the driving trajectory);
displaying the traveling route from a traveling start position to a target parking position (see at least [0050] note the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory is output via a display device); and
displaying a target route from the traveling start position to the target parking position in an automatic traveling mode (see at least [0001] note autonomous parking | [0050] note the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory, which either can correspond to the target route (TAR) if selected by the user, is output via a display device | [0027] note a target route (TAR), which includes the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory, can be selected while driving on an already selected target route),
wherein the target route in the automatic traveling mode is shorter than the traveling route in the training traveling mode (see at least annotated Figure 2, note the traveling route (TR, solid line), target route (TAR, dashed line), point(s) of turn (•) and positions (1P, 2P) | [0028] note at least one criterion can correspond to reducing the total length of the trajectory and/or reducing the total driving time for the trajectory and/or not reducing the number of steering maneuvers (i.e., turns)), and
PNG
media_image1.png
490
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first number of turns of the vehicle in the training traveling mode is same as a second number of turns of the vehicle in the automatic traveling mode (see at least [0028] note at least one criterion can correspond to not selecting reducing a number of steering maneuvers for the trajectory, that is, the first number of turns is the same, not less or more, than the second number of turns, see annotated Figure 2 above),
the traveling route includes a first turning point at a first position (see annotated Figure 2 above, note the first turning point (•) at a first position (1P) on the traveling route (TR)), and
the target route does not include the first turning point at the first position (see annotated Figure 2 above, note first turning point (•) at the first position (1P) on the target route (TAR) does not include the first turning point (•) at the first position (1P) on the traveling route (TR)).
However, Rodriguez does not specifically disclose displaying in the training traveling mode.
It is known to provide a driver with feedback. For example, Iwama teaches a system that displays a traveling route in a training traveling mode (see at least [0092]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Iwama into Rodriguez. This provides the driver with immediate visual feedback as to what their learned route looks like.
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach wherein the traveling route includes points of turn (see at least annotated Figure 2, items TR, 1P, 2P of Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach in the displaying of the target route, superimposing the target route in the automatic traveling mode on the traveling route in the training traveling mode (see at least [0050] of Rodriguez, note an output of at least one optimized trajectory and the driving trajectory, or the traveling route, are displayed to the user | [0027] of Rodriguez, note a target route, which includes the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory, can be selected while driving on an already selected target route).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach wherein the target route is a shortcut route of the traveling route (see at least annotated Figure 2 of Rodriguez, note TAR | [0028] of Rodriguez, note reducing the total length of a trajectory and reducing the total driving time for a trajectory correspond to shortcut routes of the learned traveling route).
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach displaying an icon to select whether to change the traveling route to the shortcut route (see at least [0050-0051] of Rodriguez, note that the user simply selects the shortcut route on the display | [0023] of Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach parking the vehicle in a parking space (see at least Figure 2, item 28 of Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez discloses a system for performing automatic traveling of a vehicle based on a driving operation of a user (see at least Figures 1-3 | [0001]) comprising:
storing a traveling route traveled by the vehicle according to the driving operation of the user in a training traveling mode (see at least Figure 2, items TR=26→24→22 | [0039] note the traveling route (TR) corresponds to the driving trajectory);
displaying the traveling route from a traveling start position to a target parking position (see at least [0050] note the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory is output via a display device); and
displaying a target route from the traveling start position to the target parking position in an automatic traveling mode (see at least [0001] note autonomous parking | [0050] note the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory, which either can correspond to the target route (TAR) if selected by the user, is output via a display device | [0027] note a target route (TAR), which includes the driving trajectory and at least one optimized trajectory, can be selected while driving on an already selected target route),
wherein the target route in the automatic traveling mode is shorter than the traveling route in the training traveling mode (see at least annotated Figure 2, note the traveling route (TR, solid line), target route (TAR, dashed line), point(s) of turn (•) and positions (1P, 2P) | [0028] note at least one criterion can correspond to reducing the total length of the trajectory and/or reducing the total driving time for the trajectory and/or not reducing the number of steering maneuvers (i.e., turns)),
PNG
media_image1.png
490
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first number of turns of the vehicle in the training traveling mode is same as a second number of turns of the vehicle in the automatic traveling mode (see at least [0028] note at least one criterion can correspond to not selecting reducing a number of steering maneuvers for the trajectory, that is, the first number of turns is the same, not less or more, than the second number of turns, see annotated Figure 2 above),
the traveling route includes a first turning point at a first position (see annotated Figure 2 above, note the first turning point (•) at a first position (1P) on the traveling route (TR)), and
the target route does not include the first turning point at the first position (see annotated Figure 2 above, note first turning point (•) at the first position (1P) on the target route (TAR) does not include the first turning point (•) at the first position (1P) on the traveling route (TR)).
However, Rodriguez does not specifically disclose a non-transitory recording medium that stores a driving assistance program that is readable by a computer for performing automatic traveling of a vehicle based on a driving operation of a user, wherein the driving assistance program causes the computer to perform operations including displaying in the training traveling mode.
It is known to provide a driver with feedback. For example, Iwama teaches a system that displays a traveling route in a training traveling mode (see at least [0001] | [0017] | [0073] | [0092]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Iwama into Rodriguez. This provides the driver with immediate visual feedback as to what their learned route looks like.
Regarding claim 9, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach wherein the target route includes the first turning point at a second position different from the first position (see at least annotated Figure 2, items TAR and 1P of Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 12, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach wherein the target route does not include a second turning point included in the traveling route, the target route does not include a third turning point included in the traveling route, and in the target route, the vehicle travels from a first point, which is a predetermined point between the traveling start position in the target route and the second turning point, to a second point, which is a predetermined point between the third turning point and the target parking position in the target route (see annotated Figure 2 of Rodriguez below | [0028] of Rodriguez, note reducing the total length of the trajectory).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach wherein the target route does not include points of turn between the first point and the second point (see annotated Figure 2 of Rodriguez above).
Regarding claim 14, Rodriguez in view of Iwama teach wherein the vehicle travels at a non-zero vehicle speed while traveling from the first point to the second point (see at least [0012] of Rodriguez, note the autonomously moves along the parking trajectory (i.e., it does not stop)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (DE 102019115712 A1) in view of Iwama (US 2018/0246515 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tashiro (US 2020/0346639 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez in view of Iwama strongly suggest displaying all of the traveling route from the traveling start position to the target parking position in the traveling route by a solid line arrow (see at least Figure 2, item 24 of Rodriguez | [0050] of Rodriguez | [0092] of Iwama).
However, Rodriguez in view of Iwama do not specifically teach a solid line arrow.
It is known to convey routes in different ways. For example, Tashiro teaches a display system that displays all of a route from a traveling start position to a target parking position in by a solid line arrow (see at least Figures 13-14 | [0090-0091]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Tashiro into Rodriguez in view of Iwama. This provides the ability to convey a route (and other routes) to a driver.
Claims 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (DE 102019115712 A1) in view of Iwama (US 2018/0246515 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yamada (US 2019/0176813 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez in view of Iwama do not specifically teach wherein the target route does not include a first section in which a first route and a second route overlap each other by a predetermined distance in the traveling route.
It is known for target routes to vary from traveling routes. For example, Yamada teaches a system wherein the target route (see Figure 5) does not include a first section (see the end of TR_actual before WP _shift in Figure 5) in which a first route and a second route overlap each other by a predetermined distance in the traveling route (see Figure 4 | Figure 9, item TR1-9 | [0067]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Yamada into Rodriguez in view of Iwama. This provides the ability to integrate overlapping routes and create a smooth (shorter) transition.
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez in view of Iwama and Yamada teach wherein the vehicle travels forward in the first route, and the vehicle travels backward in the second route (see at least Figures 4-5 of Yamada).
Regarding claim 15, Rodriguez in view of Iwama and Yamada teach further comprising: cutting unnecessary routes before and after the first turning point in the traveling route, in order to generate the target route (see at least Figures 4-5 of Yamada, note removal of unnecessary routes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 16, Rodriguez (DE 102019115712 A1), Iwama (US 2018/0246515 A1), Tashiro (US 2020/0346639 A1) and Yamada (US 2019/0176813 A1) do not disclose and/or fairly suggest further comprising: in the cutting of the unnecessary routes, identifying, according to connection conditions, a first point and a second point, the first turning point being included between the first point and the second point on the traveling route, wherein the connection conditions include a difference in the orientation of the vehicle at the first point and the second point in the traveling route being less than a first threshold, and a distance between the first point and the second point being less than a second threshold, and the driving assistance method determines a connection position between the first point and the second point as a second turning point in the target route instead of the first turning point in the traveling route, in order to generate the target route.
Claims 17-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks concerning IDS dated November 19, 2024, it has been considered.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments concerning the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/105,496, the stored traveling route in the training traveling mode can be the same as the target route in the automatic traveling mode. That is, a first number of turns of the vehicle in the training traveling mode is same as a second number of turns of the vehicle in the automatic traveling mode. In addition, claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/105,496 recites “wherein the target route is a shortcut route of the traveling route”, see claim 4, dated December 20, 2024. That is, the route can be slightly left or right of the traveling route which keeps the target route’s turning points/positions off the traveling route’s turning points/positions. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
It is noted that claim 16, if incorporated in its entirety into the independent claims, would overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Applicant asserts “The Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary asserts that, since RODRIGUEZ teaches reducing a total length of the trajectory, RODRIGUEZ necessarily discloses/teaches that turning points are in different locations. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the propriety of such assertion. Nothing in RODRIGUEZ discloses or teaches that an initial traveling route includes a first turning point at a first position, while the optimized trajectory does not include the first turning point at the first position (with the initial traveling route and the optimized trajectory including a same number of turns). Indeed, RODRIGUEZ is completely silent about moving turning points to different locations (while also keeping a same number of turns).”
In response, when Rodriguez keeps the amount of turns the same as the traveling route, but shortens the route, the target route shifts from to the left of the traveling route (see annotated Figure 2 below). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689