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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 8th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is the “target information acquisition device” in claims 1-5.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure (target information acquisition device 18, comprising camera sensor 12 and radar sensor 14) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180308359 A1, with an earliest priority date of October 22nd, 2015, hereinafter “Hayakawa”, in view of DE 102016011073 A1 published April 6th, 2017, hereinafter “Frey”.
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa teaches A parking control device. See at least figure 1.
comprising at least: an autonomous driving device configured to move a vehicle by autonomous steering. See at least [0082] and figure 1, wherein the parking control device contains a drive system which controls the movement of the subject vehicle.
a target information acquisition device configured to acquire information on a target around a vehicle. See at least [0033], [0039], and figure 1, wherein the subject vehicle contains cameras and a ranging device to acquire information on objects detected around the vehicle. The ranging device is a radar device.
and a control unit. See at least [0033]-[0034] and figure 1, wherein the parking control device contains a control unit.
configured to set a target trajectory from a parking start position to a parking completion position in a parking area based on the information acquired by the target information acquisition device. See at least [0076]-[0078], figure 2, and figure 4D, wherein control device 10 sets a route from a parking start position to a parking completion position in a parking area. Additionally, see at least [0051] and [0054], wherein the route is set based on information on detected objects identified by the sensors of the vehicle.
and control the autonomous driving device to move the vehicle from the parking start position to the parking completion position along the target trajectory by at least the autonomous steering. See at least [0080]-[0083] and figure 2, wherein the vehicle is controlled to follow the route by the drive system , which autonomously steers the vehicle into the target parking space.
Hayakawa remains silent on wherein the control unit is configured to, when determination is made that an entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area and is in an unlocked state based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device, set the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device.
Frey teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, when determination is made that an entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area and is in an unlocked state based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device, set the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device. See at least [0037], [0043], [0047], [0057], and figure 2, wherein a parking space has a parking lock, which, in one example, is set up to block unauthorized travel into the parking space. The vehicle can detect this parking lock and autonomously perform parking maneuvers based on the recognized parking lock being raised (locked) or lowered (unlocked). See at least [0042]-[0045], wherein the vehicle’s trajectory is adapted to the recognized parking situation to avoid driving over the parking lock when aligning the vehicle in the parking space.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hayakawa with Frey’s technique of parking a vehicle in a parking spot while avoiding driver over an entry prevention parking lock device, based on detecting that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is not in a blocking state. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so vehicles to perform autonomous parking in a variety of situations with different types of parking locks, by allowing vehicles to accurately recognize different types of parking locks and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa and Frey in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Hayakawa additionally teaches wherein the control unit is configured to cause the vehicle not to move toward the parking completion position when determination is made that the entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device. See at least [0115] and figure 9, step S202, wherein, if an object such as a traffic cone is detected to be blocking access to the parking spot, the vehicle is controlled to not park in the target parking spot. Instead, the vehicle is directed to park in a different parking spot.
Hayakawa remains silent on determining that the entry prevention object is in a locked state.
Frey teaches determining that the entry prevention object is in a locked state. See at least [0037], [0047], [0057], and figure 2, wherein the detection system of the vehicle detects that the entry prevention device is a ground lock in a raised state, which blocks the parking space from unauthorized use and prevents the vehicle from entering the parking space.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hayakawa with Frey’s technique of determining if a detected entry prevention parking lock device is in a locked state. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so vehicles to perform autonomous parking in a variety of situations with different types of parking locks, by allowing vehicles to accurately recognize different types of parking locks and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa and Frey in combination teach all of the limitations of claim as discussed above, and Hayakawa remains silent on wherein the control unit is configured to, when determination is made that a leaving prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area and is in an unlocked state based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device, set the target trajectory to cause at least one wheel of the vehicle to pass over a locking member of the leaving prevention parking lock device.
Frey teaches on wherein the control unit is configured to, when determination is made that a leaving prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area and is in an unlocked state based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device, set the target trajectory to cause at least one wheel of the vehicle to pass over a locking member of the leaving prevention parking lock device. See at least [0037], [0055]-[0056], and figures 11-12, wherein the parking spot has a leaving prevention parking device. When the parking space is free, the leaving prevention parking device is in a lowered state, and the vehicle drives over the device to enter the parking spot so that at least one wheel of the vehicle passes on top of and over the device.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hayakawa with Frey’s technique of determining that a leaving prevention parking device is present and in an unlocked state, and controlling the vehicle to drive over the leaving prevention parking device to enter the parking spot. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so vehicles to perform autonomous parking in a variety of situations with different types of parking locks, by allowing vehicles to accurately recognize different types of parking locks and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Hayakawa teaches A parking control method. See at least figure 2.
comprising: setting a target trajectory from a parking start position to a parking completion position in a parking area based on information on a target around a vehicle that is acquired by a target information acquisition device. See at least [0076]-[0078], figure 2, and figure 4D, wherein control device 10 sets a route from a parking start position to a parking completion position in a parking area. Additionally, see at least [0051] and [0054], wherein the route is set based on information on detected objects identified by the sensors of the vehicle. See at least [0033], [0039], and figure 1, wherein the subject vehicle contains cameras and a ranging device to acquire information on objects detected around the vehicle. The ranging device is a radar device.
and controlling an autonomous driving device to move the vehicle from the parking start position to the parking completion position along the target trajectory by at least autonomous steering. See at least [0080]-[0083] and figure 2, wherein the vehicle is controlled to follow the route by the drive system , which autonomously steers the vehicle into the target parking space. See at least [0082] and figure 1, wherein the parking control device contains a drive system which controls the movement of the subject vehicle.
Hayakawa remains silent on the parking control method further comprising: determining whether a parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device; and setting, when determination is made that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is in an unlocked state, the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device.
Frey teaches the parking control method further comprising: determining whether a parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device; and setting, when determination is made that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is in an unlocked state, the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device. See at least [0037], [0043], [0047], [0057], and figure 2, wherein a parking space has a parking lock, which, in one example, is set up to block unauthorized travel into the parking space. The vehicle can detect this parking lock and autonomously perform parking maneuvers based on the recognized parking lock being raised (locked) or lowered (unlocked). See at least [0042]-[0045], wherein the vehicle’s trajectory is adapted to the recognized parking situation to avoid driving over the parking lock when aligning the vehicle in the parking space.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hayakawa with Frey’s technique of parking a vehicle in a parking spot while avoiding driver over an entry prevention parking lock device, based on detecting that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is not in a blocking state. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so vehicles to perform autonomous parking in a variety of situations with different types of parking locks, by allowing vehicles to accurately recognize different types of parking locks and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing a parking control program that causes an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle. See at least [0034] and figure 1.
to: set a target trajectory from a parking start position to a parking completion position in a parking area based on information on a target around the vehicle that is acquired by a target information acquisition device. See at least [0076]-[0078], figure 2, and figure 4D, wherein control device 10 sets a route from a parking start position to a parking completion position in a parking area. Additionally, see at least [0051] and [0054], wherein the route is set based on information on detected objects identified by the sensors of the vehicle. See at least [0033], [0039], and figure 1, wherein the subject vehicle contains cameras and a ranging device to acquire information on objects detected around the vehicle. The ranging device is a radar device.
and control an autonomous driving device to move the vehicle from the parking start position to the parking completion position along the target trajectory by at least autonomous steering. See at least [0080]-[0083] and figure 2, wherein the vehicle is controlled to follow the route by the drive system , which autonomously steers the vehicle into the target parking space. See at least [0082] and figure 1, wherein the parking control device contains a drive system which controls the movement of the subject vehicle.
Hayakawa remains silent on the parking control program further causing the electronic control device to: determine whether a parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device; and set, when determination is made that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is in an unlocked state, the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device.
Frey teaches the parking control program further causing the electronic control device to: determine whether a parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device; and set, when determination is made that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is in an unlocked state, the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device. See at least [0037], [0043], [0047], [0057], and figure 2, wherein a parking space has a parking lock, which, in one example, is set up to block unauthorized travel into the parking space. The vehicle can detect this parking lock and autonomously perform parking maneuvers based on the recognized parking lock being raised (locked) or lowered (unlocked). See at least [0042]-[0045], wherein the vehicle’s trajectory is adapted to the recognized parking situation to avoid driving over the parking lock when aligning the vehicle in the parking space.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hayakawa with Frey’s technique of parking a vehicle in a parking spot while avoiding driver over an entry prevention parking lock device, based on detecting that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is not in a blocking state. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so vehicles to perform autonomous parking in a variety of situations with different types of parking locks, by allowing vehicles to accurately recognize different types of parking locks and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667