DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Remarks filed on 3/18/2026. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-7, filed 3/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Choi.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20200180607 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches A method for automated parking of a motor vehicle in a parking lot, comprising:
retrieving a reference parking lot trajectory assigned to the parking lot from a trajectory memory (“When there is no vacant parking slot at the time of initiating the automated valet parking procedure, the infrastructure facility transmits a closed loop driving lane as a guide route to the vehicle and the vehicle performs autonomous driving along the guide route.”, [0130], “Information, arguments, parameters, data, and the like may be delivered, sent, or transmitted using any suitable means such as memory sharing”, [0139], see also “In step (5), a target position and a guide route are delivered from the infrastructure facility to the vehicle.”, [0102]);
moving the motor vehicle automatically along the reference parking lot trajectory (see “the vehicle performs autonomous driving along the guide rout”, [0130] citation above);
recording environment sensor data using a vehicle sensor system during the automated movement along the reference parking lot trajectory, and carrying out a parking space detection based on the environment sensor data (“Referring to FIG. 2, the autonomous valet parking apparatus 200 (i.e., vehicle) includes a sensor 210”, [0056], “a vehicle that is performing the searching drive operation can recognize occurrence of a vacant parking slot by itself using a sensor mounted thereon”, [0134]);
moving the motor vehicle automatically to the unoccupied parking space when an unoccupied parking space is detected (“the target vehicle reports the detection of the vacant parking slot to the infrastructure facility before receiving the target position from the infrastructure facility, and autonomously parks in the detected vacant parking slot.”, [0134]); and
moving the motor vehicle along the reference parking lot trajectory until an unoccupied parking space is detected (“When there is no vacant parking slot at the time of initiating the automated valet parking procedure, the infrastructure facility transmits a closed loop driving lane as a guide route to the vehicle and the vehicle performs autonomous driving along the guide route. This autonomous driving is called a searching drive operation.”, [0130]),
wherein the reference parking lot trajectory is a closed ring trajectory (see [0128-0131] and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the reference parking lot trajectory is provided by a computer system external to the vehicle (“The infrastructure facility 100 refers to a facility or system for operating, managing, and controlling an automated valet parking system. For example, the infrastructure facility 100 may be a parking facility. According to one form, the infrastructure facility 100 includes sensors, communication devices, alarm devices, display devices, and a server device that controls those devices. Alternatively, the infrastructure facility refers to a control center that controls a parking lot gate, vehicles in a parking lot, etc.”, [0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein moving the motor vehicle along the reference parking lot trajectory until the unoccupied parking space is detected further comprises:
moving the motor vehicle continuously in a same direction of rotation along the reference parking lot trajectory such that the motor vehicle passes a same occupied parking space more than once (“The searching drive operation means an operation in which a vehicle autonomously travels along a closed loop driving lane in a parking lot when there is no vacant parking slot in the parking lot.”, [0128], “When there is no vacant parking slot at the time of initiating the automated valet parking procedure, the infrastructure facility transmits a closed loop driving lane as a guide route to the vehicle and the vehicle performs autonomous driving along the guide route. This autonomous driving is called a searching drive operation.”, [0130], “When there is no vacant parking slot at the time of initiating the automated valet parking procedure, the searching drive operation is performed such that the vehicle performs autonomous driving using a sensor mounted thereon in a state in which the infrastructure facility does not transmit a target position and a guide route to the vehicle.”, [0131], see Figs. 9-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20200180607 A1) in view of Büschenfeld et al. (US 20160362103 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches The method according to claim 1,
However, Büschenfeld teaches
comprising automatically moving the motor vehicle to a transfer position located at the reference parking lot trajectory after receiving a parking command (“The user 16 activates a transmission 38 of a transfer location D, defined by the user 16, to the motor vehicle 14 which is located at the parking position C. The transfer location D is a selected point on the trajectory 24. The motor vehicle 14 then drives autonomously to the transfer location D by travelling along the trajectory in the reverse sequence 24′.”, [0027].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Choi with the teachings of Büschenfeld such that the method of Choi further comprises moving the vehicle to a transfer location located along a parking lot trajectory after the vehicle has parked, as suggested by Büschenfeld, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to maneuver the vehicle to a flexible location [0019] such that it can be “retrieved by the user who would like to make further use of the vehicle” [0022]), as taught by Büschenfeld.
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Büschenfeld teaches The method according to claim 3, and Büschenfeld further teaches wherein the transfer position is determined by a driver of the motor vehicle (“The user 16 activates a transmission 38 of a transfer location D, defined by the user 16”, [0027].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Choi with the teachings of Büschenfeld such that the method of Choi further comprises moving the vehicle to a user defined transfer location located along a parking lot trajectory after the vehicle has parked, as suggested by Büschenfeld, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to maneuver the vehicle to a flexible location [0019] defined by the user [0020] such that it can be “retrieved by the user who would like to make further use of the vehicle” [0022]), as taught by Büschenfeld.
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Büschenfeld teaches The method according to claim 4, and Büschenfeld further teaches wherein the transfer position is received together with the parking command (“one possibility comprises defining in advance a transfer zone for the motor vehicle for further use.”, [0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Choi with the teachings of Büschenfeld such that the method of Choi further comprises moving the vehicle to a user defined transfer location located along a parking lot trajectory after the vehicle has parked, as suggested by Büschenfeld, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to maneuver the vehicle to a flexible location [0019] defined by the user [0020] such that it can be “retrieved by the user who would like to make further use of the vehicle” [0022]), as taught by Büschenfeld.
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Büschenfeld teaches The method according to claim 3, and Choi further teaches wherein the environment sensor data is recorded, using the vehicle sensor system, after a driver of the motor vehicle exits the motor vehicle at the transfer position (“Referring to FIG. 3, in step (1), a driver drives a vehicle to a drop-off area at which the driver will exit the vehicle after passing through the entrance of a parking lot.”, [0067], “The sensor 210 senses parameters of a surrounding environment of the autonomous valet parking apparatus 200. According to exemplary forms, the sensor 210 measures the distance between the autonomous valet parking apparatus 200 and a specific object or detects objects that are present around the autonomous valet parking apparatus 200. For example, the sensor 210 includes at least one-type of sensor selected from among an ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, a camera, an infrared sensor, a thermal sensor, a millimeter wave sensor, and a GPS receiver.”, [0057], “The sensor 210 transmits data that is the detection results of the sensor 210 to the transceiver 220 or the vehicle controller 240.”, [0058], “The searching drive operation means an operation in which a vehicle autonomously travels along a closed loop driving lane in a parking lot when there is no vacant parking slot in the parking lot.”, [0128]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20200180607 A1) in view of Büschenfeld et al. (US 20160362103 A1) in view of Benmimoun et al. (US 20200346638 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Büschenfeld teaches The method according to claim 3,
However, Benmimoun teaches
comprising determining a respective travel distance to the transfer position for two possible directions of rotation along the reference parking lot trajectory and automatically moving the motor vehicle in one of the two directions of rotation in which travel distance is shorter (“The data set for exiting the parking space AD comprises an additional turning maneuver. In the present exemplary embodiment, the motor vehicle 2 steers in accordance with the data set for exiting the parking space AD initially driving in reverse to the turning region 8 (see FIG. 2). If the motor vehicle 2 has reached the turning region 8 (see FIG. 3), the motor vehicle 2 changes the direction of travel and drives in the forward direction starting from the turning region 8 to the handover region 6 (see FIG. 4). Consequently, the motor vehicle 2 is now ready for the handover in the handover region 6 rotated about 180° and it is possible to drive onto a road in the forward direction.”, [0031], “If the data set for exiting the parking space AD comprises a plurality of possible driving routes and also the turning region data set WD comprises a plurality of possible turning regions 8, the control device 12, for example, selects the combination with the shortest distance.”, [0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Choi in view of Büschenfeld with the teachings of Benmimoun such that the method of Choi further comprises automatically moving the vehicle in a direction in which a travel distance is shorter such that the vehicle can reach the transfer position, as suggested by Benmimoun, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to decrease energy usage or decrease travel time by decreasing a distance traveled by the vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20200180607 A1) in view of Büschenfeld et al. (US 20160362103 A1) in view of Benmimoun et al. (US 20200346638 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Büschenfeld teaches The method according to claim 3, and Büschenfeld further teaches further comprising:
receiving, by a driver located separately from the motor vehicle, (“The user 16 drives the motor vehicle 14 as far as a first parking level 22 and exits the vehicle there at an exit point B…The user 16 activates a transmission 38 of a transfer location D, defined by the user 16, to the motor vehicle 14 which is located at the parking position C. The transfer location D is a selected point on the trajectory 24. The motor vehicle 14 then drives autonomously to the transfer location D by travelling along the trajectory in the reverse sequence 24′.”, [0027].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Choi with the teachings of Büschenfeld such that the method of Choi further comprises receiving a location of the transfer position from a driver located separately from the vehicle, as suggested by Büschenfeld, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to increase customer experience by allowing the user to set the transfer position after the vehicle has been parked when they are returning to the vehicle, as taught by Büschenfeld [0027].
Choi teaches “in step (9), the infrastructure facility 100 notifies the driver that it takes the right to control the vehicle 200 in the parking lot. Such a notification may be sent to a driver's smart device through a mobile communication network.” [0108], but does not explicitly teach the parking command is received by the driver when they are located separately from the vehicle.
However, Benmimoun teaches
receiving, by a driver located separately from the motor vehicle, the parking command (“If, after terminating the training phase, the driver exits the motor vehicle 2 after reaching the handover zone 6 in a further step S400, the driver starts the parking maneuver by means of transmitting a starting signal ST, for example with the aid of a handheld device such as a smartphone, said parking maneuver then being performed in accordance with the parking data set ED.”, [0036]).
Choi teaches that the driver exits the vehicle, and hands over the parking control to a computer system external to the vehicle such that the external computer system sends a parking command to the vehicle such that the vehicle autonomously travels and performs parking. Benmimoun teaches that the driver exits the vehicle, and using a terminal device sends a parking command to the vehicle such that the vehicle autonomously travels and performs parking. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Choi in view of Büschenfeld with the teachings of Benmimoun such that the parking command of Choi is received from a driver located separately from the vehicle, as suggested by Benmimoun, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to increase driver control of the vehicle by allowing the driver to confirm that they desire for automatic parking to be performed once outside of the vehicle, as taught by Benmimoun [0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313)446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM, Mountain Time, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights