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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This FINAL action is in response to amendment filed on 03/24/2026.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 4 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102017218536 A1 MARON MATTHIAS (hereinafter Maron), in view of US 20190137290 A1 Levy; Gahl et al. (hereinafter Levy), further in view of US 12585276 B1 Silver; David Harrison et al. (hereinafter Silver).
Regarding claim 1, Maron discloses: A remote moving system (see Maron at least [0043] the vehicle 1 can move itself, i.e. automatically, or is moved by means of the system 10 described above through manual, i.e. remote control, operation), comprising:
an electronic control unit configured to move a vehicle by a remote operation using an operation terminal (see Maron at least [0053] Advantageously, the control device can receive and process the signals required to carry out the procedure and in turn output signals to the existing means for automated and/or remote-controlled driving and [0033] a request can also be made via… B. can be done via mobile device),
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to permit a target vehicle to be moved by the remote operation in response to a riding condition and a start suppression condition being satisfied (see Maron at least [0029] In a third step S3, a check can be carried out to determine whether the authorization for the request to move the first vehicle 1 exists. Those authorized to enter should be at least the persons whose vehicles are parked… If vehicles 2 or 3, which are parked by the first vehicle 1, need to be moved out, the first vehicle 1 must be moved to free up the space for parking and [0043] in a sixth step S6, if no obstacle has been detected in the planned offset distance B2 or B3, the first vehicle 1 is moved longitudinally by the planned offset distance B2 or B3).
Maron does not teach: wherein the riding condition is satisfied when an operator performing the remote operation using the operation terminal rides in a non-target vehicle that is different from the target vehicle which is a vehicle driven by the remote operation, and
wherein the start suppression condition is satisfied when the non-target vehicle is stopped and does not start moving.
However, Levy teaches: wherein the riding condition is satisfied when an operator performing the remote operation using the operation terminal rides in a non-target vehicle that is different from the target vehicle which is a vehicle driven by the remote operation (see Levy at least [0057] the autonomous vehicle can render text, an icon, an animation, or another visual indicator… indicating availability of remote control to move the autonomous vehicle out of its current location, such as if the autonomous vehicle is double-parked or parked in a parking spot... a user (e.g., a human rider or human operator) in another vehicle can thus text the number provided by the autonomous vehicle to request that the autonomous vehicle move out of its parking space).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle remote operation system disclosed by Maron to include the permitting of remote control of the vehicle by a rider of another vehicle of Levy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the person in the other vehicle may require the remote movement of the vehicle in order to access a desired location such as an owned parking spot, as suggested by Levy (see Levy at least [0056] the autonomous vehicle can indicate to other autonomous vehicles nearby that the autonomous vehicle is temporarily parked and then yield its parking space to another autonomous vehicle upon receipt of a request for the autonomous vehicle's parking space from the other autonomous vehicle, such as if the request from the other autonomous vehicle contains a set of parameters (e.g., requested parking duration, ownership of the parking space)).
Maron and Levy do not teach: wherein the start suppression condition is satisfied when the non-target vehicle is stopped and does not start moving.
However, Silver teaches: wherein the start suppression condition is satisfied when the non-target vehicle is stopped and does not start moving (see Silver at least [col. 3, lines 32-35] Identifying a vehicle as parked may indicate that it is likely not going to move anytime soon and therefore the autonomous vehicle would have time to take actions to avoid the parked vehicle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle remote operation system disclosed by Maron and Levy to include the other vehicle parking status-dependent unmanned operation of a vehicle of Silver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because whether or not another vehicle nearby an unmanned vehicle is anticipated to remain stopped affects the actions that an unmanned vehicle is permitted to take, as suggested by Silver (see Silver at least [col. 16, lines 38-40] Based on the whether the detected vehicle is identified as parked or unparked, autonomous vehicle 100 may be controlled in accordance with a control strategy).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maron, in view of Levy, further in view of Silver, and further in view of US 20200310406 A1 Lavoie; Erick Michael et al. (hereinafter Lavoie).
Regarding claim 2, Maron, Levy, and Silver disclose: The remote moving system according to claim 1, wherein the riding condition is satisfied when the operator performing the remote operation using the operation terminal rides in the non-target vehicle (see Levy at least [0057] the autonomous vehicle can render text, an icon, an animation, or another visual indicator… indicating availability of remote control to move the autonomous vehicle out of its current location, such as if the autonomous vehicle is double-parked or parked in a parking spot... a user (e.g., a human rider or human operator) in another vehicle can thus text the number provided by the autonomous vehicle to request that the autonomous vehicle move out of its parking space).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle remote operation system disclosed by Maron, Levy, and Silver to include the permitting of remote control of the vehicle by a rider of another vehicle of Levy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the person in the other vehicle may require the remote movement of the vehicle in order to access a desired location such as an owned parking spot, as suggested by Levy (see Levy at least [0056] the autonomous vehicle can indicate to other autonomous vehicles nearby that the autonomous vehicle is temporarily parked and then yield its parking space to another autonomous vehicle upon receipt of a request for the autonomous vehicle's parking space from the other autonomous vehicle, such as if the request from the other autonomous vehicle contains a set of parameters (e.g., requested parking duration, ownership of the parking space)).
Maron, Levy, and Silver do not teach: wherein the riding condition is satisfied when a condition a driving apparatus of the non-target vehicle is in an operating state.
However, Lavoie teaches: wherein the riding condition is satisfied when a condition a driving apparatus of the non-target vehicle is in an operating state (see Lavoie at least [0081] the command controller 120 detects an alert condition for RePA in response to (1) verifying that a transmission of the vehicle 100 is in park, (2) identifying that an ignition is activated upon determining that the ignition was inactive, (3) identifying that an engine is activated upon determining that the engine was inactive).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote vehicle operation system condition checks disclosed by Maron, Levy, and Silver to include the verification of applicable operating conditions before execution of movement of Lavoie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the remote movement system may not operate until vehicle conditions are appropriate for the designated operation, as suggested by Lavoie (see Lavoie at least [0081] In response to the command controller 120 determining that an alert condition for RePA is not present, the method 800 proceeds to block 820 at which the autonomy unit 118 autonomously performs a motive function for RePA based on the received RePA signal).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maron, in view of Levy, further in view of Silver, and further in view of US 20220410895 A1 Salter; Stuart C. et al. (hereinafter Salter).
Regarding claim 3, Maron, Levy, and Silver disclose: The remote moving system according to claim 1.
Maron, Levy, and Silver do not teach: wherein the start suppression condition becomes satisfied when at least one of (i) a condition that a shift range of the non-target vehicle is set to a parking range, (ii) a condition that the non-target vehicle is held in a stopped state by an electric parking brake device, and (iii) a condition that a brake pedal of the non-target vehicle is operated by the operator and a vehicle moving speed of the non-target vehicle is zero.
However, Salter teaches: wherein the start suppression condition becomes satisfied in response to at least one of (i) a condition that a shift range of the non-target vehicle is set to a parking range, (ii) a condition that the non-target vehicle is held in a stopped state by an electric parking brake device, and (iii) a condition that a brake pedal of the non-target vehicle is operated by the operator and a vehicle moving speed of the non-target vehicle is zero (see Salter at least [0046] FIG. 10 shows a preferred method of the invention where a leading vehicle and a trailing vehicle are stopped in a starting position ready to be parked into or out from a parking space in step 70 with their transmission gear selectors set to park).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parked-vehicle confirmation step of the remote vehicle operation system disclosed by Maron, Levy, and Silver to include the gear selector position assessment in determining that a vehicle is parked of Salter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because once it is determined that the user’s vehicle is stopped, then the process for remote operation may begin, as suggested by Salter (see Salter at least [0046] In step 71, a smart app is activated on a user's mobile device for performing a remote-controlled parking maneuver by using a user interface presented at least in part on a touchscreen of the mobile device to coordinate the parking operation together with a network of controllers in the vehicles).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maron, in view of Levy, further in view of Silver, further in view of Lavoie, and further in view of Salter.
Regarding claim 5, Maron, Levy, Silver, and Lavoie disclose: The remote moving system according to claim 2.
Maron, Levy, Silver, and Lavoie do not teach: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, in response to a shift range of the non-target vehicle being set to a parking range, determine that the start suppression condition becomes satisfied.
However, Salter teaches: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, in response to a shift range of the non-target vehicle being set to a parking range, determine that the start suppression condition becomes satisfied (see Salter at least [0046] FIG. 10 shows a preferred method of the invention where a leading vehicle and a trailing vehicle are stopped in a starting position ready to be parked into or out from a parking space in step 70 with their transmission gear selectors set to park).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parked-vehicle confirmation step of the remote vehicle operation system disclosed by Maron, Levy, Silver, and Lavoie to include the gear selector position assessment in determining that a vehicle is parked of Salter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because once it is determined that the user’s vehicle is stopped, then the process for remote operation may begin, as suggested by Salter (see Salter at least [0046] In step 71, a smart app is activated on a user's mobile device for performing a remote-controlled parking maneuver by using a user interface presented at least in part on a touchscreen of the mobile device to coordinate the parking operation together with a network of controllers in the vehicles).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maron.
Regarding claim 6, Maron, Levy, Silver, Lavoie, and Salter disclose: The remote moving system according to claim 5.
Maron, Levy, Silver, Lavoie, and Salter do not teach: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, in response to the non-target vehicle being held in a stopped state by an electric parking brake device, determine that the start suppression condition becomes satisfied.
However, Makishima teaches: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, in response to the non-target vehicle being held in a stopped state by an electric parking brake device, determine that the start suppression condition becomes satisfied (see Makishima at least [pg. 5, para. 7, beginning with “The controller 40 determines”] If the parking brake 10 is in a braking state (electric parking brake on), the controller 40 determines that the vehicle is in a stopped state).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parked-vehicle confirmation step of the remote vehicle operation system disclosed by Maron, Levy, Silver, Lavoie, and Salter to include the electric parking brake consideration of Makishima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because an electric parking brake is employed to prevent a vehicle from moving while parked, and as such, the active status of an electric parking brake can indicate that a vehicle is parked, as suggested by Makishima (see Makishima at least [pg. 3, para. 11, beginning with “The parking brake 10”] The parking brake 10 is a braking device that prevents the vehicle from moving when the vehicle is parked or the like, for example, by braking the wheels of the vehicle).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maron, in view of Levy, further in view of Silver, further in view of Lavoie, further in view of Salter, further in view of Makishima, and further in view of US 5704873 A Iwata; Akihito et al. (hereinafter Iwata).
Regarding claim 7, Maron, Levy, Silver, Lavoie, Salter, and Makishima disclose: The remote moving system according to claim 6.
Maron, Levy, Silver, Lavoie, Salter, and Makishima do not teach: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, in response to a brake pedal of the non-target vehicle being operated by the operator and a vehicle moving speed of the non-target vehicle being zero, determine that the start suppression condition becomes satisfied.
However, Iwata teaches: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, in response to a brake pedal of the non-target vehicle being operated by the operator and a vehicle moving speed of the non-target vehicle being zero, determine that the start suppression condition becomes satisfied (see Iwata at least [col. 2, lines 10-13] a detected stopped state of the vehicle as defined by (a) a forward running range being selected, (b) a throttle opening being fully closed, (c) a brake pedal being depressed, and (d) a vehicle speed being substantially zero).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parked-vehicle confirmation step of the remote vehicle operation system disclosed by Maron, Levy, Silver, Lavoie, Salter, and Makishima to include the consideration of brake pedal depression and vehicle speed in determination of a vehicle stopped state of Iwata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using these metrics to determine whether or not the vehicle is stopped allows a determination of whether or not the conditions are met for other stopping-related processes in a vehicle, as suggested by Iwata (see Iwata at least [col. 8, lines 47-49] it is decided that the starting condition is satisfied if the stopped state exists from the stopped state detector).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections to the specification.
Applicant's cancellation of claim 4 renders the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection for claim(s) 4 moot.
Applicant's cancellation of claim 4 renders the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection for claim(s) 4 moot.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-3 (remarks pages 6-8), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the arguments provided for new claims 5-7, new 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections have been issued as necessitated by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220004185 A1 Kim; Chung Tae discloses remote control of a vehicle which is blocking another vehicle by an owner of the another vehicle
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/8/26
Prosecution Insights