DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification Objection and General Remarks
The examiner finds the present disclosure and claims highly confusing. The examiner will therefore write this introduction to explain his own understanding of the disclosure so far as he can interpret it, starting with the following objection.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0032 recites lacks a closing parentheses. Because the famous writing instructor William Zinsser argued debatably that if it is not important enough to go outside of parentheses then it is not important enough to remain in a sentence, the examiner will interpret the open parentheses as a comma, rather than the comma after the word sensor in the first sentence as a closed parenthesis. Appropriate correction or explanation is respectfully required. For examination purposes the paragraph will be interpreted as corrected above.
The examiner notes here that this paragraph teaches that “the information on distance from vehicle 1 to an obstacle” is “obtained from a sonar sensor”. Paragraph 0039 recites “the distance information generator 2 acquires the information on the distance from the sonar sensor (step S5), and updates the sonar distance information (step S6).
Note that paragraph 0041, discussing Fig. 5, teaches that “reproducer 32 of driving assistance device 21 selects features point map information corresponding to the current self-position of vehicle 1 (step S11), and further selects sonar distance information (step S12).” An important question here is what data is the “current self-position of vehicle 1” based on? Is it sonar data originally obtained before the vehicle started moving? Paragraph 0018 teaches that cameras capture images around the vehicle and then paragraph 0019 teaches that “a sonar sensor is used to estimate the self-position of vehicle 1 more accurately”. Emphasis added. This might imply that the self-position is generated by cameras, and then more accurate self-position is generated by sonar.
According to Fig. 3, the “Reproducer 32” never receives “sonar distance information”. Note that it receives as inputs (arrows going into the reproducer 32) “camera image CAN information,” as well as data from “map information storage” 24 and “route information storage” 25. This must mean that when paragraph 0041 teaches that “reproducer 32 of driving assistance device 21 selects features point map information corresponding to the current self-position of vehicle 1 (step S11), and further selects sonar distance information (step S12),” this must mean that the “the current self-position of vehicle 1” in S11 of Fig. 5 does not come from sonar data.
The system, according to paragraph 0042, then “determines whether vehicle 1 has moved a predetermined distance (S13)” and when the answer is “YES,” i.e., YES out of S13, the system acquires cameras image 14 (step S13), and estimates the self-position with SLAM processing (step S15).
Fig. 5 includes a section labeled “during registration” and another labeled “during reproduction”. It seems to the examiner that the “registration” involves the planning of a parking route into a parking space. At least in one broad reasonable interpretation. Then, the “during reproduction” involves executing what has been planned.
Paragraph 0043 states that “distance comparator 33 acquires the information on the distance from the sonar sensor and acquires sonar distance information corresponding to the self-position of vehicle 1 registered in distance information storage 26”. This distance information storage item 26 only receives data from the “distance information generator” but that device, item 23, receives information from both the “camera image CAN information” and the “sonar distance information”. But at least in this paragraph, the distance comparator 33 is comparing only sonar data. That is true, because the “information on the distance” and the “distance information” are both designated as “sonar”.
Paragraph 0043 goes on to recite a formula for determining a “difference d” which is: “d = (sonar distance acquired from sonar sensor) – (registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position)”. Suppose the “registered sonar distance” is 5 meters when the vehicle is stopped and preparing to back into a parking space. Then suppose the “sonar distance acquired from sonar sensor” in real-time is 2 meters. The difference d would be 2-5, or – 3 meters. According to paragraph 0044 if d is smaller than a predetermined value, the system “superimposes fixture marker on the image of surround monitor”.
Is the examiner correct that the registration is the process before the vehicle begins maneuvering into the parking space? The examiner respectfully requests a specific answer to this question with support from the disclosure. Paragraph 0057 teaches that there are cases, such as the one in Fig. 8, “where obstacle 52 (which was not present during the registration of the parking route) is detected when the parking route is reproduced”. In the examiner’s view this supports the interpretation that the “registration” is the initial process before the vehicle begins its maneuver.
Fig. 6 and paragraph 0052 imply that the “registered sonar distance” mentioned in the preceding paragraph is sampled at intervals along “the route information to be registered”. What does this mean? Fig. 7 clearly shows multiple “registered sonar distance[s]” as the vehicle backs up along the route into the parking space. How can these “registered” sonar distances be acquired at various points as the parking route is reproduced when registration is before the parking route is even commenced? The only way the examiner can make sense of this is if the “registered sonar distance” is taken from memory and is always the same. To refer back to the examiner’s previous example in which the registered sonar distance is 5 meters, that 5 meters would stay the same at points C and D.
Paragraph 0054 and Fig. 7 teach that a vehicle can deviate from registered route 42 and instead be located at “self-position A.” The paragraph states that “Thus, position C is searched as the position (closest to current self-position A) of vehicle 1 at the time of the registration of route information, and difference d described above is calculated.” Again, from paragraph 0043, the equation for difference d is: “d = (sonar distance acquired from sonar sensor) – (registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position)”. This is confusing but it might by that real-time sonar data (“sonar distance acquired from sonar sensor”) is obtained from point A, but the “registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position” is taken from memory at the time the route was registered. The examiner doesn’t know why information on the registered route would be needed if the registered sonar distance is always 5 meters.
The examiner also notes that paragraph 0054 recites “current self-position A” but the equation for distance d involves “registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position”. It is difficult to make sense of this phrase. If the sonar distance is the distance at registration, i.e., the “registered sonar distance” why would it correspond to the “self-position” of the vehicle? This last phrase “corresponding to self-position” might mean the original self-position at registration. It’s hard to tell.
Paragraph 0057 refers to Fig. 8 automatic parking in “a case where obstacle 52 (which was not present during the registration of the parking route) is detected when the parking route is reproduced”. Since the obstacle can be “a flowerpot” this “not present during registration” must mean something like “not detected during registration” since it’s hard to interpret the flowerpot as mobile. But the paragraph also teaches that the obstacle was not detected “but the vehicle is automatically parked along route 51, namely, a solid line following registered route 42.” In this case, the distance d has a different equation, which is found in paragraph 0058. The original equation from paragraph 0043 was:
d = (sonar distance acquired from sonar sensor) – (registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position)”.
The new equation from paragraph 0058 is:
d = (acquired sonar distance) – (registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position) + (protrusion distance of obstacle corresponding to self-position)
The examiner does not know why the nomenclature of the first term was changed. Why was “sonar distance acquired from sonar sensor” changed to “acquired sonar distance”? Are they the same?
Paragraph 0058 presents an apparent contradiction. The phrase “protrusion distance of obstacle corresponding to self-position” appears to mean that this distance is determined in real-time. So “self-position” must mean real-time. Since that is the case, how can the “registered sonar distance” which is taken before the parking maneuver also be “corresponding to self-position”? Perhaps this relates to the example illustrated in Fig. 9.
According to paragraph 0061, Fig. 9 illustrates “automatic parking when obstacle 52 is present”. Note that the paragraph states that Fig. 9 is “a case where obstacle 52 (which was not present during the registration of the parking route) is detected when the parking route is reproduced, and in order to avoid obstacle 52, the vehicle is automatically parked by following solid-line bypass route 61 obtained by correcting registered route 42.” Nothing in the disclosure so far as the examiner can tell relates to how to automatically determine whether or not to generate and follow a bypass route.
How is Fig. 7 to Fig. 9 related, if at all? Paragraph 0054, discussing Fig. 7, states that “when vehicle 1 deviates from registered route 42” it may be located at “self-position A”. As previously discussed, in that case “position C is searched as the position (closest to current self-position A) of vehicle 1 at the time of the registration of route information, and difference d described above is calculated.” Does this mean that in Fig. 9, when the system somehow decides to take route 61, that the system uses a “sonar installation offset” as shown in Fig. 9? This may be related to the equation in paragraph 0062, which relates to figure 9. The equation is as follows:
d = (acquired sonar distance) – (registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position) + (protrusion distance of obstacle corresponding to self-position) + (distance between registered route corresponding to self-position and bypass route)”. The last term is new compared to the equation for d found in paragraph 0058.
Using the examiner’s previous example, and supposing that the “protrusion distance of obstacle corresponding to self-position” is .25 meters in the negative direction, and the “distance between registered route corresponding to self-position and bypass route,” which is the last term of the equation, is also 0.25 meters also in the negative direction, the equation above would be as follows:
d = 2 – 5 + (-.25 + -.25) = -3.5 meters.
It is possible that the examiner does not have all the negatives correct. The general idea seems to be about determining when to highlight an obstacle or sound a warning. If the registered sonar distance measures 5 meters, yet actual route 61 is farther from the originally registered route 42, and the system really just wants to know how close protrusion 52 is to the vehicle in real-time, perhaps the system basically says: the registered sonar distance is 5 meters, but we are shifted away from the obstacle by .25 of a meter due to a route bypass. But the obstacle is 0.25 of a meter closer than if without an obstacle. So they offset. Essentially, determine if an obstacle is closer than a threshold, and adjust the threshold based on a route offset. Is that the idea? That might possibly be what is contemplated though the examiner by no means submits that that has written description.
It also seems to the examiner, in the various equations for “d,” the term “self-position” essentially means real-time position. Therefore, the “acquired sonar distance” is really the one “corresponding to self-position”. The term “registered sonar distance corresponding to self-position” does not involve the offset because the last term in the equation in paragraph 0062 takes care of that.
Overall, the examiner finds the disclosure to be difficult to understand, as will be seen more in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
A driving assistance device that performs driving assistance based on information on a distance between a vehicle and an obstacle, the driving assistance device comprising:
a distance information generator that
acquires the information on the distance detected by a sonar and
generates sonar distance information in which the information on the distance corresponding to a position of the vehicle is associated with information on the position of the vehicle,
the position being one of positions of the vehicle; and
a distance information storage that stores the sonar distance information.
Claim 1 lacks written description. The claim recites terms found in the system of Fig. 3, such as the “distance information generator,” item 23. The claim states that the “distance information generator” “acquires” some information and “generates” some information. The terms used for what is acquired and what is generated are important and must relate to the drawings and specification. That is based on MPEP 2111, which states that the interpretation of the terms used in the claims “must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings,” unless the terms are known in the art, which is not the case in the present disclosure. Fig. 3 shows clearly that the distance information generator 23 acquires “sonar distance information” and outputs something unlabeled in Fig. 3 to the distance information storage, item 26.
Paragraph 0039 recites that the “distance information generator 23 acquires the information on the distance from the sonar sensor”. Emphasis added. This means that the input into the distance information generator 23 is called “the information on the distance from the sonar sensor”. Paragraph 0043 supports this interpretation. It recites that “distance comparator 33 acquires the information on the distance from the sonar sensor and acquires sonar distance information corresponding to the self-position of vehicle 1 registered in distance information storage 26”. This means that the input to the distance information generator 23 is the “information on the distance” and the output of the distance information generator 23 is the “sonar distance information”.
It seems to the examiner that, according to the specification and figures, what the sonar sensor provides is called “the information on the distance”. The distance information generator 23 acquires “the information on the distance” and generates “sonar distance information”. Claim 1 puts these in the opposite. Yet Fig. 3 also labels the input to the distance information generator 23 as “sonar distance information”.
These terms are important and should be used consistently. It may be that the applicant needs to present arguments explaining each term, and amend the spec, figures, and claims so that they all match. The examiner will examine these terms as shown in the 35 USC 112(b) section below.
Furthermore, the examiner believes that all terms should be fully modified in their first mention. For example, original claim 1 recites in the second hollow bullet “the information on the distance”. If this is referring back to the first mention of “information on a distance,” why is the second mention the one that has the phrase further modified?
Claim 4 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a sound output that outputs, during manual driving in which the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired,
a warning sound when the marker is displayed on the display,
wherein the sound output outputs, during the manual driving, the warning sound different from a warning sound that is output during the execution of the driving assistance.
The disclosure does not teach that “the information on the distance detected by the sonar” is only acquired during manual driving as implied by the claim. This information is acquired whether manual driving or automatic parking is performed.
Furthermore, “driving assistance” and “manual driving” are not separate in the disclosure. Rather, the entire disclosed system is one of “driving assistance”. The driving assistance highlights objects and produces warning sounds. It does so, as claim 4, says, during manual driving. The contrast is between “manual driving” and “automatic parking,” as discussed in at least paragraph 0061.
For examination purposes, claim 4 will be interpreted as follows:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a sound output that outputs, during manual driving
wherein the sound output outputs, during the manual driving, the warning sound different from a warning sound that is output during
The examiner does not necessarily state that this examiner interpretation, or any other, have written description. The applicant is responsible for claim construction.
Claim 8 lacks written description. It recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during manual driving is present during the execution of the driving assistance,
the manual driving being driving in which
the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired, and
when the [current] distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance obtained by subtracting, from a distance registered in the sonar distance information, a distance over which the obstacle protrudes.
The claim recites that “the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during manual driving is present during the execution of the driving assistance”. The specification does not teach this. It only teaches that there may be an obstacle having not been present during registration that is present during the execution of the driving reproduction. What this broadly and reasonably means is that there are objects that the sensors cannot detect from the vehicle’s initial starting position, which is called registration. But later, during actual maneuvering the vehicle, which is called “during reproduction,” the sensors can detect the obstacle because it comes into view, as seen in Fig. 8.
Furthermore, the specification does not teach a distinction between “manual driving” and “driving assistance”. Rather the vehicle can be “automatically parked” or manually driven.” See that 35 USC 112(b) section for how the claim will be interpreted for examination purposes.
Additionally, the specification does not state how the system determines “a distance over which the obstacle protrudes”. It would seem that it uses sonar to determine this. But how does the sonar know that it is a protrusion and not just a wall, for example? That is not described in the specification.
Claim 9 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during manual driving is present during the execution of the driving assistance,
the manual driving being driving in which
the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired, when the vehicle travels a bypass route for avoiding the obstacle, the bypass route being not a route registered by the manual driving, and
when the distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance obtained by subtracting a distance over which the obstacle protrudes and a distance between the route registered by the manual driving and the bypass route from a distance registered in the sonar distance information.
The first bullet is largely identical to the first bullet of claim 8 and rejected for the same reasons.
Additionally, there is no “bypass route” associated with manual driving, unless the applicant wishes to argue that when paragraph 0061 states that Fig. 6 relates to “automatic parking” it really means manual parking. In any case, there is no “route registered by the manual driving” in the disclosure. Registration is the initial route that the system generates before it begins moving, so far as the examiner can tell. That route is either followed or not. It is not generated during manual driving. If that were the case, how could the manual driving be “being driving in which…the vehicle travels a bypass route”?
Claims 9-18 are substantially similar to claims 1-9, respectively, rejected for the same reasons, and will be interpreted in the same way. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, with the examiner’s interpretation in bold:
A driving assistance device that performs driving assistance based on information on a distance between a vehicle and an obstacle, the driving assistance device comprising [there are so many references to “information” in the claim that it becomes utterly confusing. A broad claim with written description that is particularly pointed out is different from one that is not particularly pointed out, as is the case here.]:
a distance information generator that
acquires the information on the distance detected by a sonar and [the antecedent to “the distance” might be the “a distance” recited above. This “a distance” might be measured by sonar or by cameras or with a GPS and map. There is some talk in the specification about SLAM. But as shown in Fig. 3, the “distance information generator,” item 33, only receives “sonar distance information. So this first hollow bullet might be trying to refine “the distance” mentioned in the preamble to make clear that it is only “the distance” that is “detected by a sonar”. The preamble probably needs to be made clearer in order for this claim construction to work.]
generates sonar distance information in which the information on the distance corresponding to a position of the vehicle is associated with information on the position of the vehicle [it at first appears that “the distance corresponding to a position of the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis. The claim already recited “a distance between a vehicle and an obstacle” so maybe the phrase in this second hollow bullet was meant to reference that. But, on second though, perhaps only the phrase “the distance” has antecedent basis and is meant to refer to “the distance” in the previous hollow bullet. If that is the intention, the phrase “the distance” needs to be spelled out more specifically because more than one has been recited in the claim. If may be that, the phrase in the present clause reciting “the distance” could be interpreted as” the distance detected by sonar”. The examiner notes that the discussion of this “associated with” in this claim could relate to the map information generator 22 being an input into item 23, but the claim is by no means restricted to that interpretation. The sonar distance information is also “information on the position of the vehicle. As the examiner previously mentioned, the terms in the claims and the terms in the specification are different. This makes interpretation very difficult if not impossible.],
the position being one of positions of the vehicle; and
a distance information storage that stores the sonar distance information.
The claim recites various distances. There is “a distance between a vehicle and an obstacle”. There is “the distance detected by a sonar”. There is “sonar distance information”. And there is “the sonar distance information”.
The last clause recites “the position”. It is unclear which position this refers to.
For examination purposes, claim 1 will be interpreted as follows, with the examiner’s deletions in single-strike through and additions in bold underlined italics:
A driving assistance device that performs driving assistance
a distance information generator that
acquires a distance detected by a sonar and
generates sonar distance information
a distance information storage that stores the sonar distance information.
The examiner believes that such extensive deletions are warranted in this extreme case because of the highly convoluted nature of the claims. The claims are some of the most confusing the examiner has come across. Furthermore, the discussion in claim 1 about the “position” does not come up again in dependent claims.
Yet even if this extensive revision is made, the examiner believes that the terms for the distance acquired and the distance generated are opposite of the terms used in the disclosure. This makes the claims so utterly confusing as to be uninterpretable by the examiner.
Compact prosecution requires examiner’s to make their best effort to interpret claims and then apply art rejections based on the examiner’s claim interpretation where appropriate. But in some cases—and this is the first one the examiner has cited this on—claims are so confusing that the onus returns to the applicant to write clear claims before they can be understood enough for art rejections, if any, to be applied. The examiner will therefore not attempt to apply art rejection to the present claims.
This is justified at least for the following reasons, as discussed in more detail in this detailed action: 1) Entire terms might need to be switched, as in claim 1, and the entire disclosure amended. 2) The term “registration” in the claims and in the disclosure do not appear to match. This makes the entire system and processes difficult to interpret.
The examiner has provided a detailed explanation of how he interprets the entire disclosure, and what issues he sees with the claims. The examiner is also willing to conduct an interview to discuss the present application and any claim amendments, and has provided some guidelines that might help in amendments. But due to at least the reasons stated above, the examiner respectfully will not provide art rejections because the meaning of the claims are too obscure.
For more information on the examiner’s position, see MPEP 702.01. The section states in part that in cases like the present one “The burden is on the applicant to revise the application to render it in proper form for a complete examination.” And that “A blanket rejection is usually sufficient.” The examiner has provided much more than that.
Although dependent claims in this detailed action are labeled with how they will be interpreted for examination purposes, this is meant as a guideline for the applicant for the future and not meant to be interpreted as a definite recommendation.
Furthermore, even if the dependent claims could be understood, they depend on independent claims which are too difficult to understand. The examiner further notes that the Japanese Patent office similarly did not issue art rejections, while arguing in two detailed actions that the claims had issues with sections analogous to 35 USC 112.
Claim 3 is not particularly pointed out. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance registered in the sonar distance information.
As discussed above, and in the specification in paragraph 0050, the “registered sonar distance” is perhaps the distance the sonar measured initially, which is “during registration,” which is before the vehicle begins is parking maneuver. This registered parking distance”.
For examination purposes, claim 3 will be interpreted as follows:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance registered in the sonar distance information,
wherein the distance registered in the sonar distance is the information on the distance detected by a sonar.
Claim 5 is not particularly pointed out. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a sound output that outputs a warning sound when the marker is displayed on the display,
wherein, when the vehicle deviates from a route registered by manual driving, the sound output outputs warning sounds of different types depending on a degree of deviation from the route.
What “a route registered by manual driving” means is unknown and not described in the specification. As discussed above, there are various modes that are taught in the disclosure. These are modes 1-3 and correspond to Figs. 7-9 respectively. Paragraph 0054 teaches that Fig. 7 relates to “When vehicle 1 deviates from registered route 42.” But the paragraph does not say that the route is “registered by manual driving”. Paragraph 0067 mention “a time of registration” and a degree of deviation, but not “a route registered by manual driving.”
Paragraph 0069 also does not provide written description in the examiner’s view. In the examiner’s view, when the first sentence in that paragraph recites “when route information is registered,” that reasonably means: when, after route information is registered,….The first sentence of paragraph 0070 shows that the vehicle can deviate “from the route registered at the time of registration”. There is a specific time of registration in the examiner’s view. And that is before parking begins, as has already been discussed in this detailed action.
For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted as:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a sound output that outputs a warning sound when the marker is displayed on the display,
wherein, when the vehicle deviates from a registered route registered route.
Claim 6 is not particularly pointed out. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a collision avoidance device that operates a brake of the vehicle when the obstacle is detected,
wherein the collision avoidance device increases a distance between the vehicle operating the brake and an obstacle during manual driving as compared to a distance between the vehicle operating the brake and an obstacle during the execution of the driving assistance,
the manual driving being driving in which the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired.
The present claim seems to imply a comparison between “manual driving” and driving with “driving assistance”. In the examiner’s view, the entire disclosed system is a “parking assistance” system that has features for manual parking and “automatic parking,” as recited in paragraph 0057. The main distinction is really between “automatic parking” as recited in paragraph 0057 and “manual driving”. The “collision avoidance device” can operate a brake even during manual driving, according to paragraph 0069.
It is also not the case that “the manual driving being driving in which the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired.” The specification does not teach restrict the detection to just the case of manual driving.
The collision avoidance device does not simply operate the brake “when the obstacle is detected”. Rather, a particular distance must be detected. Reciting “an obstacle” multiple times lacks antecedent basis.
For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted as:
The driving assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a collision avoidance device that operates a brake of the vehicle
wherein the collision avoidance device increases a distance between the vehicle
Claim 7 is not particularly pointed out. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
when the vehicle deviates from a route registered by manual driving, the marker generator displays the marker located in a direction in which the vehicle deviates more emphatically than the marker located on a side opposite to the direction in which the vehicle deviates.
For examination claim 7 will be interpreted as follows:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
when the vehicle deviates from a registered route
The examiner notes that the claim is otherwise supported by paragraph 0070. It seems that an obstacle could still be closer to the side opposite to the direction in which the vehicle deviates, but that is not a rejection issue.
Claim 8 is not particularly pointed out. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during manual driving is present during the execution of the driving assistance,
the manual driving being driving in which
the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired, and
when the [current] distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance obtained by subtracting, from a distance registered in the sonar distance information, a distance over which the obstacle protrudes.
Claim 8 appears to be referring to the equation in paragraph 0062, but that equation relates to “automatic parking,” according to the first sentence of paragraph 0062. It might be that because this claim is part of the original disclosure that is good enough to make equation applicable to manual driving as well as automatic driving. The examiner will consider arguments to that effect in any forthcoming filings from the applicant, as well as an explanation for how this claim has written description if it does involve manual driving.
Claim 1 recites two different distances. The first is “information on the distance detected by a sonar” and the second is “sonar distance information”. The examiner has pointed out that these aren’t used in the claims consistent with the spec and figures. But at least in the claims the “information on the distance detected by a sonar” is interpreted as the initial distance measured by the sonar sensor at the time of registration before the parking maneuver begins.
For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted as follows:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during registering the parking route is present during the execution of the manual or automatic parking,
the manual driving being driving in which
the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired, and
when the distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance obtained by subtracting, from the sonar distance information, a distance over which the obstacle protrudes.
Note that, as argued in the written description rejection for this claim, the specification does not state how the system determines “a distance over which the obstacle protrudes”. It would seem that it uses sonar to determine this. But how does the sonar know that it is a protrusion and not just a wall, for example? That is not described in the specification.
Claim 9 is not particularly pointed out. The claim recites:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during manual driving is present during the execution of the driving assistance,
the manual driving being driving in which
the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired, when the vehicle travels a bypass route for avoiding the obstacle, the bypass route being not a route registered by the manual driving, and
when the distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance obtained by subtracting a distance over which the obstacle protrudes and a distance between the route registered by the manual driving and the bypass route from a distance registered in the sonar distance information.
The math in the claim is also unclear. What is being subtracted from what? For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as shown.
For examination purposes, claim 9 will be interpreted as:
The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the marker generator generates the information on the marker when the obstacle having not been present during registering the parking route is present during the execution of the manual or automatic parking,
the manual driving being driving in which
the information on the distance detected by the sonar is acquired, when the vehicle travels a bypass route for avoiding the obstacle, the bypass route being not a route registered by the manual driving, and
when the distance detected by the sonar is smaller than a distance obtained by subtracting a distance over which the obstacle protrudes and [subtracting] a distance between the route registered the sonar distance information.
Claims 9-18 are substantially similar to claims 1-9, respectively, rejected for the same reasons, and will be interpreted in the same way. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Kim et al. (US2018/0043905). See at least paragraph 0024 for a vehicle that deviates from a parking path previously designed. See paragraph 0241 for this occurring during automatic parking.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park (US2021/0103743) for a system that provides “a higher level of warning” depending on the distance to the object during parking. This can involve a color change. See paragraph 0068 for outputting warning sounds in increasing volume or frequency depending on the proximity of the object.
PNG
media_image3.png
604
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Martin et al. (US2022/0379882). Teaches sonar in paragraph 0073. Teaches at least a system that uses sonar to park a vehicle.
PNG
media_image4.png
712
1078
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Suzuki et al. (US2020/0298835) teaches automatic parking with appropriate clearances.
PNG
media_image5.png
366
475
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lou et al. (US2020/0001862) teaches driving around obstacles to automatically park.
PNG
media_image6.png
787
547
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee (US2018/0339700) teaches automatic parking and angle control. See paragraph 0126 for an infrared sensor 350.
PNG
media_image7.png
688
427
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kiyokawa (US2017/0028985) teaches automatic parking with specific distances using a mobile device.
PNG
media_image8.png
330
432
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
832
578
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
719
575
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Harada et al. (US2009/0073263). See Fig. 1 for a sonar sensor 3 and a camera 5A. See Figs. 2A-2D for warnings as the host vehicle gets progressively closer to the object. See at least paragraph 0027 for masking objects that are not close enough to need to be displayed. See paragraph 0029 for a warning sound.
PNG
media_image11.png
684
486
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Curtis (US2016/0325680) teaches at least “callouts” to alert a driver of obstacles as the driver parks, as taught in at least paragraph 0103. These can be “highlights” or boxes, text, and can be superimposed.
PNG
media_image12.png
218
206
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Kadowaki (US2010/0219010). See Figs. 8 and 9 attached below and at least paragraph 0063 for showing “where the driver of the vehicle 30 should turn”.
PNG
media_image13.png
791
626
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Inoue et al. (US2019/0217856). See paragraph 0011 for determining by a “sonar device” distances based on the “ultrasonic wave”. The system determines a parking space and then automatically parks the vehicle.
PNG
media_image14.png
600
700
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
734
450
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Zhou (WO2023/179534). See page 11 of the attached English translation for step S302 being one in which the system determines that the target vehicle deviates from the first parking path by a distance greater than a first threshold while parking the vehicle.
Fukaya (JP2012056534A) teaches in at least Fig. 3a and 3b a user selecting whether to back in or pull forward into a parking space.
PNG
media_image16.png
473
627
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665