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
Claims 1-11, 14 and 15 of U.S. Application No. 18/923750 filed on 10/23/2024 have been examined.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 3-7, 10, 11 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagashima et al. [US 2020/0041992 A1], hereinafter referred to as Nagashima.
As to Claim 1 and 13, Nagashima discloses a method performed by a vehicle system for assisting remote parking or unparking a vehicle, the method comprising: transmitting, to a remote device, first data for triggering a challenge response ([see at least Fig.1, Fig. 2, 0048, 0069 and 0083]) ; receiving, as the challenge response from the remote device, second data, wherein the second data comprises information about a touch position on a touch screen of the remote device ([see at least Fig.1, Fig. 3A, 0048, 0061, 0075, 0069, 0083 and 0153]); determining whether the challenge response is valid ([see at least Fig. 11, Fig. 12, 0150, 0156 and 0157]); if the challenge response is valid, controlling the vehicle to move ([see at least Fig. 11, Fig. 12, 0150, 0156 and 0157]); and if the challenge response is not valid, controlling the vehicle to brake ([see at least 0174, 0272 and 0328]); wherein the challenge response is valid if: the touch position is different than a previous touch position corresponding to a previously received second data, and if the touch position is within a first threshold distance from the previous touch position; or the touch position corresponds to an expected swipe movement on the touch screen, wherein the expected swipe movement comprises pressing down on a first zone among a plurality of contiguous zones on the touch screen, continuously moving a finger into subsequent zones and continuously moving the finger back after reaching a final zone among the contiguous zones ([see at least Fig. 4A, Fig. 12, Fig. 19, 0075, 0078, 0157, 0174, 0272 and 0328]).
As to Claim 3, Nagashima discloses a method, wherein the expected swipe movement further comprises continuously moving the finger from one contiguous zone to the next within an expected amount of time that is less than a first time threshold and more than a second time threshold ([see at least Fig. 4A, 0075, 0078, 0158, 0325 and 0327]).
As to Claim 4, Nagashima discloses a method, wherein the expected swipe movement further comprises skipping one or two zones ([see at least Fig. 19, Fig. 20 and Fig. 21]).
As to Claim 5, Nagashima discloses a method for a vehicle system to assist to remotely parking or unparking a vehicle, the method comprising: transmitting, to a remote device, first data for triggering a challenge response; receiving, as the challenge response from the remote device, second data, wherein the second data comprises a first information about a touch position on a touch screen of the remote device and a second information indicating a position of the remote device in relation to ground ([see at least Fig. 4A, Fig. 12, Fig. 19, 0075, 0078, 0157, 0174, 0272 and 0328]).; determining whether the challenge response is valid; if the challenge response is valid, controlling the vehicle to move; and if the challenge response is not valid, controlling the vehicle to brake ([see at least Fig. 4A, Fig. 12, Fig. 19, 0075, 0078, 0157, 0174, 0272 and 0328]); wherein the challenge response is valid if the second information indicates that the remote device forms an angle with the ground within a tilt range and one of the following is true: if the touch position is a touch movement from an initial position to an end position that is equal to or less than a set drag distance ([see at least Fig. 4A, Fig. 12, Fig. 19, 0075, 0078, 0157, 0174, 0272 and 0328]).; or if the touch position is within a certain range from a previous touch position corresponding to a previously received second data, and if the second information indicates that the position of the remote device is different than a previous position indicated by previously received second information ([see at least Fig. 4A, Fig. 12, Fig. 19, 0075, 0078, 0157, 0174, 0272 and 0328]).
As to Claim 6, Nagashima discloses a method, wherein the tilt range is between zero degrees and 90 degrees ([see at least Fig. 3A, 0064 and 0065]).
As to Claim 7, Nagashima discloses a method, wherein the second data comprises horizontal and vertical coordinates of the touch position or initial position on the touch screen ([see at least Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, Fig. 8, 0068, 0069, 0075, 0120 and 0375]).
As to Claim 10, Nagashima discloses a method, further comprising controlling the vehicle to brake if the second data is not received within a certain time from the transmission of the first data ([see at least Fig. 4A, 0075, 0078, 0158, 0325 and 0327]).
As to Claim 11, Nagashima discloses a method, wherein the challenge response is valid if the touch position or touch movement is performed on a predetermined area of the touch screen([see at least Fig. 11, Fig. 12, 0150, 0156 and 0157]).
As to Claim 14, Nagashima discloses a method for a remote device comprising: receiving first data from a vehicle system; receiving, from a user of the remote device, a touch input on one or more positions of a touch screen of the remote device while keeping the remote device in a position such that the remote device forms an angle with the ground within a tilt range; and sending, by the remote device to the vehicle system, second data in response to the first data, the second data comprising a first information about the touch input, and a second information indicating the angle formed by the remote device with the ground ([see at least Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, 0069 and 0072]).
As to Claim 15, Nagashima discloses a method, wherein the touch input comprises an initial touch movement across the screen from an initial position to an end position, wherein a distance between the initial position and the end position is a drag distance ([see at least Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, Fig. 8, 0068, 0069, 0075, 0120 and 0375]).
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagashima, in view of Van Weimeersch et al. [US 2022/0229432 A1], hereinafter referred to as Van.
As to claims 9, Nagashima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nagashima does not explicitly disclose wherein the further comprising controlling the vehicle to brake if the remote device is not located within a certain distance from the vehicle. However Van teaches wherein the further comprising controlling the vehicle to brake if the remote device is not located within a certain distance from the vehicle ([see at least 0023, 0075 and 0077], “ When the tethering limit is exceeded, the ReDAT system 107 may generate a command to the VCU 165 that causes the vehicle 105 to stop. In one example embodiment, the ReDAT system 107 may cause the mobile device 120 to output one or more blinking red arrows in the perspective view (e.g., the message 1110 may indicate a message such as “Maneuver Has Stopped.”). Both Nagashima and Van illustrate similar methods in which remotely controls a vehicle to park. Van discloses short distance communication but does not detail the vehicle untethered once the device is not located within a distance. Van on the other hand teaches controlling the vehicle to brake if the remote device is not located within a certain distance from the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified Nagashima so as to include controlling the vehicle to brake if the remote device is not located within a certain distance from the vehicle. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand controlling the vehicle to brake if the remote device is not located within a certain distance from the vehicle as taught in Van, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine controlling the vehicle to brake if the remote device is not located within a certain distance from the vehicle and Van because this would improve accuracy and avoid technology limitation [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach a method a method, wherein the vertical and horizontal coordinates comprise respectively a percentage of a width and height of the touch screen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. 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.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668