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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/912,770 filed on 10/11/2024.
• Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/17/2026.
• The applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/912,770 filed on 10/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: control unit, processing unit in claims 12, 15-20.
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.
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 § 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) 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AUST (US20200004254A1) in view of Benmimoun (EP4120218A1), further in view of Takacs (DE102019133735A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20;
AUST teaches:
A method for unsupervised maneuvering of a vehicle, comprising: prior to causing the vehicle to autonomously depart a parking position without supervision, (AUST, para[03], “fully autonomous vehicles where no human driver interaction is needed”, and para [14], “prior to driving off—raising the level of the vehicle body in relation to the ground”)
causing the vehicle to perform a first pre-departure movement configured to prevent endangering vulnerable road users (VRUs) in a vicinity of the vehicle; (AUST, para [14], “prior to driving off—raising the level of the vehicle body in relation to the ground”, para [22], “determine that an observer is in vicinity of the vehicle”, and para [72], “This gives an observer advance information of the action, and enables said observer to plan his or her behavior and/or react to the behaviors of the autonomous vehicle 2 ahead of time.”)
the first pre-departure movement is a downward movement configured to reduce a ground clearance of the vehicle, (AUST, para [34], “lowering the vehicle body front portion and rear portion from a nominal suspension level to a lower suspension level”)
and the method further comprises causing the vehicle to reverse the first pre-departure movement (AUST, para [14], “prior to driving off—raising the level of the vehicle body in relation to the ground”,
AUST does not explicitly teach, but Benmimoun teaches:
and in response to receiving a command from a user of the vehicle instructing the vehicle to autonomously drive to a vehicle retrieval location, causing the vehicle to autonomously drive to the vehicle retrieval location, wherein the parking position is located outside a field of view of the user,( Benmimoun, para[02], “The vehicle is also able to autonomously drive the parked vehicle from a parking slot to a specified pickup location ("summon" manoeuvre) upon request by the user.”, para [04], “ from a position where the vehicle is out of sight of the user”)
before causing the vehicle to drive to the vehicle retrieval location. ( Benmimoun, para[02], “The vehicle is also able to autonomously drive the parked vehicle from a parking slot to a specified pickup location”)
prior to causing the vehicle to autonomously depart a parking position without supervision, ( Benmimoun, para[02], “The vehicle is also able to autonomously drive the parked vehicle from a parking slot to a specified pickup location”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Benmimoun in order to include and in response to receiving a command from a user of the vehicle instructing the vehicle to autonomously drive to a vehicle retrieval location, causing the vehicle to autonomously drive to the vehicle retrieval location, wherein the parking position is located outside a field of view of the user with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Benminoun’s summon scenario so that, when the user issue a summon command from a location where the vehicle is out of view, the vehicle first performs the AUST vertical motion as a pre-departure movement and then autonomously departs the parking slot toward the retrieval location, thereby enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
AUST does not explicitly teach, but Takacs teaches:
causing the vehicle to perform the first pre-departure movement is performed upon the vehicle arriving at the parking position, (Takacs, para[16], “a predetermined movement is carried out with the vehicle… For example, a jolt, a shake and/or a jerk can be generated.”, and para [30], “vehicle 1 is parked on a parking space”)
causing the vehicle to perform a second pre-departure movement configured to prevent endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle, (Takacs, para[16], “to issue at least one warning signal, a drive motor and/or a braking system of the vehicle are controlled in such a way that a predetermined movement is carried out with the vehicle…Mechanical methods can also be used to issue a warning signal. For example, a jolt, a shake and/or a jerk can be generated. This can be used to warn living beings in the danger zone to leave it”)
wherein the second pre-departure movement includes a longitudinal back and forth movement, (Takacs, para[17], “the drive motor can be controlled so that the vehicle rolls the predetermined distance. The distance traveled can be just a few centimeters. A subsequent hard braking of the vehicle can create an overall backward movement of the vehicle”)Examiner note: Takacs teaches a second pre-departure movement includes a longitudinal back and forth movement such as the vehicle rolls forward and backward motion.
and wherein the longitudinal back and forth movement is configured to cause the vehicle to move forward by an alert distance and to reverse by the alert distance, the alert distance being configured to alert the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle of an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position without endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle. (Takacs, para[17], “the drive motor can be controlled so that the vehicle rolls the predetermined distance. The distance traveled can be just a few centimeters. A subsequent hard braking of the vehicle can create an overall backward movement of the vehicle…This allows for an effective warning to be issued to living beings in the danger zone. In particular, the creatures may be startled, causing them to leave the danger zone.”) Examiner note: Takacs teaches a second pre-departure movement includes a longitudinal back and forth movement such as the vehicle rolls forward and backward motion in the predetermined distance. The distance traveled can be just a few centimeters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Takacs in order to include causing the vehicle to perform a second pre-departure movement configured to prevent endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle, causing the vehicle to perform a second pre-departure movement configured to prevent endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle, wherein the second pre-departure movement includes a longitudinal back and forth movement, and wherein the longitudinal back and forth movement is configured to cause the vehicle to move forward by an alert distance and to reverse by the alert distance, the alert distance being configured to alert the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle of an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position without endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Takacs’s predetermined warning motions allows for an effective warning to be issued to living beings in the danger zone and causing them to leave the danger zone, therefore enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
Regarding claims 3 and 14;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. AUST does not explicitly teach, but Takacs teaches:
wherein the second pre-departure movement further includes a steering motion, and wherein the steering motion is a turning motion of front wheels of the vehicle. (Takacs, para[16], “a predetermined movement…it may be provided that a steering system is activated to generate a warning. For example, the steerable wheels can be rotated accordingly”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Takacs in order to include wherein the second pre-departure movement further includes a steering motion, and wherein the steering motion is a turning motion of front wheels of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Takacs’s predetermined warning motions allows for an effective warning to be issued to living beings in the danger zone and causing them to leave the danger zone, therefore enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
Regarding claims 4 and 15;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. AUST does not explicitly teach, but Takacs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the first pre-departure movement is one of a longitudinal back and forth movement and a steering motion, the longitudinal back and forth movement is configured to cause the vehicle to move forward by an alert distance and to reverse by the alert distance, the alert distance being configured to alert the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle of an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position without endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle, and the steering motion is a turning motion of front wheels of the vehicle. (Takacs, para[16], “a predetermined movement…it may be provided that a steering system is activated to generate a warning. For example, the steerable wheels can be rotated accordingly”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Takacs in order to include the first pre-departure movement is one of a longitudinal back and forth movement and a steering motion, the longitudinal back and forth movement is configured to cause the vehicle to move forward by an alert distance and to reverse by the alert distance, the alert distance being configured to alert the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle of an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position without endangering the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle, and the steering motion is a turning motion of front wheels of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Takacs’s predetermined warning motions allows for an effective warning to be issued to living beings in the danger zone and causing them to leave the danger zone, therefore enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
Regarding claims 5 and 16;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. AUST teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to causing the vehicle to autonomously depart a parking position without supervision,( AUST, para[03], “fully autonomous vehicles where no human driver interaction is needed”, and para [14], “prior to driving off”)
causing the vehicle to emit an alert sound, wherein the alert sound is configured to alert the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle of an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position. ( AUST, para[32], “the intention indicating system may further provide a sound output representing the autonomous kinematic action”)
Regarding claim 6;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. AUST teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the alert sound is at least one of a car horn sound, a car unlock sound and an acoustic vehicle alerting system (AVAS) sound. ( AUST, para[32], “A sound output may be … represented by for instance beeps, sound signals, jingles etc.”)
Regarding claims 9 and 18;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. AUST teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing at least one light of the vehicle to flash for an alert time interval, wherein the flashing for the alert time interval is configured to alert the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle of an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position. ( AUST, para[23], “the intention indicating system may further provide—with support from a light providing device including one or more light sources adapted to emit light, which light providing device is provided continuously and/or intermittently”)
Claim(s) 7-8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AUST (US20200004254A1) in view of Benmimoun (EP4120218A1), further in view of Takacs (DE102019133735A1) and Englander (US20210287546A1).
Regarding claim 7;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. AUST teaches:
autonomous departure of the vehicle(AUST, para[03], “fully autonomous vehicles where no human driver interaction is needed”, and para [14], “prior to driving off”)
AUST does not explicitly teach, but Englander teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the alert sound is a voice message announcing the impending …departure of the vehicle.( Englander, para[09], “an advanced pedestrian alert system for providing auditory …alerts to vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, bikers, motorcyclists, etc.)… issues appropriate or predetermined…announcements”, and para [109], “the shifting of the bus from a park gear to a first gear”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Englander in order to include a wherein the alert sound is a voice message announcing the impending departure of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Englander’s advanced pedestrian alert system so that, providing auditory and/or visual alerts to vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, bikers, motorcyclists, etc.) that are in potentially harmful proximity to a moving vehicle, thereby enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
Regarding claims 8 and 17;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. AUST does not explicitly teach, but Englander teaches:
The method of claim 5, further comprising at least one of: suppressing the alert sound depending on a time of day, or suppressing the alert sound in response to not detecting the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle using one or more sensors of the vehicle. ( Englander, para[18], “the system may be configured to …quieter depending on… and/or time of day the vehicle is in”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Englander in order to include further comprising at least one of: suppressing the alert sound depending on a time of day, or suppressing the alert sound in response to not detecting the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle using one or more sensors of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Englander’s advanced pedestrian alert system so that, providing auditory and/or visual alerts to vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, bikers, motorcyclists, etc.) that are in potentially harmful proximity to a moving vehicle, thereby enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AUST (US20200004254A1) in view of Benmimoun (EP4120218A1), further in view of Takacs (DE102019133735A1) and McCann (US20250050902A1).
Regarding claim 10;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. AUST does not explicitly teach, but McCann teaches:
The method of claim 9, further comprising: suppressing the flashing of the at least one light for the alert time interval in response to not detecting the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle using one or more sensors of the vehicle.( McCann, para[55], “the control module 102 may suppress or prevent the adjustment of the light intensity if one or more conditions are met… the control module 102 may adjust the light intensity of the headlights 118, 120 and/or the detection module 104 may be active (e.g., to detect a VRU)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from McCann in order to include suppressing the flashing of the at least one light for the alert time interval in response to not detecting the VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle using one or more sensors of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to McCann’s advanced pedestrian alert system so that, providing visual alerts to vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, bikers, motorcyclists, etc.) that are in potentially harmful proximity to a moving vehicle, thereby enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
Claim(s) 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AUST (US20200004254A1) in view of Benmimoun (EP4120218A1), further in view of Takacs (DE102019133735A1) and Conger (US20190135169A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 19;
AUST in view of Benmimoun and Takacs, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. AUST does not explicitly teach, but Conger teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing the vehicle to project at least one alert ground projection on a ground surface in the vicinity of the vehicle, the alert ground projection including imagery configured to alert VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle to an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position.( Conger, claim 1, “projects an alert icon onto the ground near the determined pedestrian to alert the determined pedestrian that the determined pedestrian is at or near or approaching the determined path of travel of the vehicle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify automated driving system from AUST to include these above teachings from Conger in order to include causing the vehicle to project at least one alert ground projection on a ground surface in the vicinity of the vehicle, the alert ground projection including imagery configured to alert VRUs in the vicinity of the vehicle to an impending autonomous departure of the vehicle from the parking position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine AUST’s pre-departure indication movement to Conger’s advanced pedestrian alert system so that, providing visual alerts to vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, bikers, motorcyclists, etc.) that are in potentially harmful proximity to a moving vehicle, thereby enhancing safety for nearby vulnerable road users.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Objection to the Claims. The amendments have overcome the claim objections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 11, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant amended the independent claims 1, 12 and 20 with the claim limitation of “wherein the second pre-departure movement includes a longitudinal back and forth movement”. This amended claim limitation is different in scope from the prior claim limitation reciting “wherein the second pre-departure movement is one of a longitudinal back and forth movement and a steering motion”, previously set forth in the dependent claims 3 and 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights