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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter (US 20230016676).
Regarding claim 1, A method for parking warning, comprising: determining an operational status of a vehicle; (“The vehicle 10A is equipped with park assist to assist with the parking of the vehicle 10A, particularly to assist the driver with parking of the vehicle 10A, particularly at a parking location within a garage.” Salter: paragraph 53, “The park assist may be executed by method 300 shown in FIG. 5C for the second configuration. Method 300 begins at step 302 and proceeds to step 304 to determine that the vehicle is approaching the garage and ready to enter the garage.” Salter: paragraph 69, & Fig. 5C)
acquiring, in real-time, environmental detection data between the vehicle and obstacles surrounding the vehicle at a preset distance, (“Next, at step 306, the vehicle uses data available for the garage boundary dimensions” Salter: paragraph 69, “The stored parameters 500 may include door closure data such as dimensions for each closure door on the corresponding vehicle and on other vehicles such as a parked vehicle, including the swing distance extended from the vehicle 10A in the open door position” Salter: paragraph 63 & “In FIG. 6D, the vehicle 10B is shown parked too close to one wall of the garage 70 such that one or more power closure doors on the vehicle 10A may not fully open without contact to the one wall. In this situation, the vehicle 10A provides a warning indicator 82 to warn the driver of the vehicle 10A that one or more vehicle closure doors may not be fully accessible. The driver may then attempt to reposition the vehicle 10A or may attempt to park the vehicle 10A in that location knowing that one or more closure doors may not be fully operable or accessible.” Salter: paragraph 70; the preset distance of the doors swing distance and calculating of proper projected parking location with the swing distance and detected obstacles in mind)
when the operational status of the vehicle indicating the vehicle is on a trajectory to a parking space; estimating a drop-off distance, before the vehicle is parked, and based on the environmental detection data, wherein the drop-off distance indicates distances between the vehicle and the obstacles if the vehicle continues on the trajectory to the parking space; and outputting a warning message when the drop-off distance is less than or equal to a distance threshold. (“Next, at step 308, the vehicle presents a map on the display showing the projected parking location within the garage that allows access to the vehicle closure doors without obstruction by an object, such as the garage walls.” Salter: paragraph 69 & “In FIG. 6D, the vehicle 10B is shown parked too close to one wall of the garage 70 such that one or more power closure doors on the vehicle 10A may not fully open without contact to the one wall. In this situation, the vehicle 10A provides a warning indicator 82 to warn the driver of the vehicle 10A that one or more vehicle closure doors may not be fully accessible. The driver may then attempt to reposition the vehicle 10A or may attempt to park the vehicle 10A in that location knowing that one or more closure doors may not be fully operable or accessible.” Salter: paragraph 70)
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 1, wherein the outputting the warning message comprises outputting at least one of text, image, and voice by an output device. (“At step 312, the map is displayed on the screen display with live updates as the vehicle proceeds. Proceeding to step 314, method 300 may provide voice commands such as instructions to turn the vehicle steering wheel right or left, stop, etc. for the user to follow the instructions to park the vehicle at the parking location. Finally, the step 316, method 300 informs the user of any determined non-compliance with vehicle guidance.” Salter: paragraph 69)
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 1, further comprising setting the distance threshold according to an open manner of a door of the vehicle. (“The stored parameters 500 may include door closure data such as dimensions for each closure door on the corresponding vehicle and on other vehicles such as a parked vehicle, including the swing distance extended from the vehicle 10A in the open door position” Salter: paragraph 63 & “In FIG. 6D, the vehicle 10B is shown parked too close to one wall of the garage 70 such that one or more power closure doors on the vehicle 10A may not fully open without contact to the one wall. In this situation, the vehicle 10A provides a warning indicator 82 to warn the driver of the vehicle 10A that one or more vehicle closure doors may not be fully accessible. The driver may then attempt to reposition the vehicle 10A or may attempt to park the vehicle 10A in that location knowing that one or more closure doors may not be fully operable or accessible.” Salter: paragraph 70)
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 stated above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 9 stated above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Szczerba (US 20100253543).
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein before acquiring, in real-time, environmental detection data between the vehicle and the obstacles, and the operational status of the vehicle is in a parking state (“The vehicle 10A is equipped with park assist to assist with the parking of the vehicle 10A, particularly to assist the driver with parking of the vehicle 10A, particularly at a parking location within a garage.” Salter: paragraph 53, “The park assist may be executed by method 300 shown in FIG. 5C for the second configuration. Method 300 begins at step 302 and proceeds to step 304 to determine that the vehicle is approaching the garage and ready to enter the garage.” Salter: paragraph 69, & Fig. 5C)
The claimed method further comprises: determining whether a driving direction of the vehicle is straight is not specifically disclosed by Salter. Szczerba discloses a parking assistance system that teaches detecting a steering angle of a vehicle and whether the angle is straight or not (“The current-heading advancing footprint of the vehicle provides an estimation of space the vehicle can occupy during straight steering, forward or reverse operation and is calibratable or model driven. The parking aid graphic 812 further includes a straight distance metric graphic 810 having a sliding indicator configured to provide a simple geometric indication based upon analyses of the camera, radar returns or lidar returns to estimate the distance the vehicle must travel to execute the parking maneuver. Additionally, a suggested steering wheel control metric graphic 802 can also be displayed indicating a reference steering angle 804, current steering wheel angle 806 and desired steering wheel angle 808. Utilizing the parking aid graphic 812 displayed upon the substantially transparent windscreen head up display and including the pair of lines 816 and 818 approximating the current-heading advancing footprint graphic, the straight distance metric graphic and the suggested steering wheel control metric graphic 802, the operator of the vehicle can perform a parking maneuver into a parking spot located behind the vehicle” Szczerba: paragraph 192). Modifying Salter to include a steering wheel determination would increase the overall capabilities of the system by providing the user with additional information regarding the parking maneuver. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salter according to Szczerba.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 2 stated above.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Szczerba and further in view of Gillott (US 20170334353)
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 1, wherein before acquiring, in real-time, environmental detection data between the vehicle and the obstacles, the method further comprises: and the operational status of the vehicle is in a parking state; (“The vehicle 10A is equipped with park assist to assist with the parking of the vehicle 10A, particularly to assist the driver with parking of the vehicle 10A, particularly at a parking location within a garage.” Salter: paragraph 53, “The park assist may be executed by method 300 shown in FIG. 5C for the second configuration. Method 300 begins at step 302 and proceeds to step 304 to determine that the vehicle is approaching the garage and ready to enter the garage.” Salter: paragraph 69, & Fig. 5C)
The claimed determining whether a driving direction of the vehicle is straight is not specifically disclosed by Salter. Szczerba discloses a parking assistance system that teaches detecting a steering angle of a vehicle and whether the angle is straight or not (“The current-heading advancing footprint of the vehicle provides an estimation of space the vehicle can occupy during straight steering, forward or reverse operation and is calibratable or model driven. The parking aid graphic 812 further includes a straight distance metric graphic 810 having a sliding indicator configured to provide a simple geometric indication based upon analyses of the camera, radar returns or lidar returns to estimate the distance the vehicle must travel to execute the parking maneuver. Additionally, a suggested steering wheel control metric graphic 802 can also be displayed indicating a reference steering angle 804, current steering wheel angle 806 and desired steering wheel angle 808. Utilizing the parking aid graphic 812 displayed upon the substantially transparent windscreen head up display and including the pair of lines 816 and 818 approximating the current-heading advancing footprint graphic, the straight distance metric graphic and the suggested steering wheel control metric graphic 802, the operator of the vehicle can perform a parking maneuver into a parking spot located behind the vehicle” Szczerba: paragraph 192). Modifying Salter to include a steering wheel determination would increase the overall capabilities of the system by providing the user with additional information regarding the parking maneuver. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salter according to Szczerba.
The claimed determining whether the front passenger seat and/or the rear seats of the vehicle is occupied by at least one passenger is not specifically disclosed by Salter and Szczerba. Gillott discloses a parking assistance system that teaches detecting the presence of occupants in passenger seats of a vehicle to give parking assistance that will allow the passengers to also be able to exit the vehicle (“FIG. 6 shows a further schematic diagram of the parking assistance system 1. In the illustrated example, the passenger PA driving the car is an adult accompanied by a smaller person such as a child PB. In some examples, this is detected by the parking assistance system 1 by evaluating sensor weight data indicating a weight of a person P provided for instance by seat sensors integrated in passenger seats. Further, a camera image CI of the passenger room may be evaluated to detect an approximate size of a person P occupying the passenger seats. Depending on the detected size of the person, the parking assistance system 1 calculates necessary opening angles of the vehicle doors which still allow the person P to leave the car” GIllott: paragraph 48). Modifying Salter to detect the presence of passengers would increase the overall utility of the system by providing for adequate space for every passenger in the vehicle after parking. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salter according to Gillott.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 3, further comprising: obtaining detection data detected by a human detection device, wherein the human detection device is installed in the passenger seat and the rear seats; the determining whether the front passenger seat and/or the rear seats of the vehicle is occupied by at least one passenger is based on the detection data from the human detection device. (“FIG. 2 illustrates schematically a passenger room PR of a vehicle VEH having internal sensors that include seat sensors 5A, 5B integrated in passenger seats 9A, 9B occupied by passengers PA, PB.” Gillott: paragraph 38, figures 2, 4A, 4B)
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 3 stated above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 8 stated above.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Tasovac (US 20180164429).
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein the environmental detection data comprises a first distance and a first angle between the vehicle and the obstacles; the first distance and the first angle are acquired by an environmental detection device installed on the vehicle; the first distance is a distance between the environmental detection device and the obstacle; the first angle is a deviation angle of the environmental detection device relative to the obstacle is not specifically disclosed by Salter. Tasovac discloses a parking system that teaches using both distance and angle to obstacle detection (“Apparatus 100 and its method of operation provide the following operations features: [0024] 1. Detection of the obstacle distance; [0025] 2. Detection of the angle toward the obstacle” Tasovac: paragraph 23). Modifying Salter to include both distance and angle detection of obstacles would increase the overall capabilities of the system by providing the user with additional data for detecting obstacles for avoidance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salter according to Tasovac.
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 4, wherein the environmental detection device comprises a first environmental detection device and a second environmental detection device, the first environmental detection device is installed at the front end of the vehicle, and the second environmental detection device is installed at the back end of the vehicle; the first environmental detection device is configured to acquire the first distance and the first angle, when the vehicle moves forward; the second environmental detection device is configured to acquire the first distance and the first angle, when the vehicle moves backward. (“There is a high probability that the radar parking sensors will be integrated inside in the vehicle environment like vehicle bumpers: front and rear area, as well as on vehicle side areas, inside bumpers or similar. The basic aim of the proposed invention is to provide radar sensor topology giving more operation and functional features compared to the commonly used ultrasound systems, by being invisibly embedded in the vehicle, in contrast to current parking sensor and having inherent capability to compete in the realization cost with ultrasound parking systems.” Tasovac: paragraph 113 & figure 1)
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 4 stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 5 stated above.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Choi (US 20140309834).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein determining the operational status of the vehicle comprises: obtaining a travel speed and an environment surrounding the vehicle; determining the operational status of the vehicle is in the parking state, when the travel speed decreases and the environment is identified as a parking environment is not specifically disclosed by Salter. Choi discloses a parking assistance device that teaches determining the intent of the drive to be parking based on speed and detecting parking lines (“The parking intention determining unit may be configured to determine that the driver intends to park in an area when a parking line is sensed in the vicinity of the vehicle. In addition, the parking intention determining unit may be configured to determine that the driver intends to park in an area when the vehicle travels at a substantially low speed which is less than a threshold speed, when parking lot information in the vicinity of the area is detected.” Choi: paragraph 8). Modifying Salter to automatically detect when a vehicle is parking would increase the overall capabilities of the system by providing the user with an automated way to start the parking assistance process without user input. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salter according to Choi.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 6 stated above.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Tasovac and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 4, wherein determining the operational status of the vehicle comprises: obtaining a travel speed of the vehicle and operations of a steering wheel of the vehicle; determining the operational status of the vehicle is in the parking state, when the travel speed decreases and the operations of the steering meet preset conditions for parking a vehicle is not specifically disclosed by Salter and Tasovac. Choi discloses a parking assistance device that teaches determining the intent of the drive to be parking based on speed and direction of the vehicle (“The parking intention determining unit may be configured to determine that the driver intends to park in an area when a parking line is sensed in the vicinity of the vehicle. In addition, the parking intention determining unit may be configured to determine that the driver intends to park in an area when the vehicle travels at a substantially low speed which is less than a threshold speed, when parking lot information in the vicinity of the area is detected.” Choi: paragraph 8 & “a method for parking assistance is provided that may include: determining a driver's intention to park based on condition information of a vehicle and surrounding information; setting a parking mode of a vehicle by analyzing the direction of the vehicle” Choi: paragraph 11). Modifying Salter and Tasovac to automatically detect when a vehicle is parking would increase the overall capabilities of the system by providing the user with an automated way to start the parking assistance process without user input. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salter and Tasovac according to Choi.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 7 stated above.
Conclusion
Related Art:
US 20250289455 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 20230160250 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 11313167 B2 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 20210264172 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 20200254928 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 20190120931 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 20190102634 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
US 20180180731 A1 – parking assistance with angle calculation
US 20170132482 A1 – parking assistance with obstacle detection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p, 8:30-10p; T: 6-7:30a, 12-4p, 7:30p-12a; W: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p; H: 6-7:30a, 8:15a-4:45p; F: 12:00-4:45p.
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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689