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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, and 5 concerning the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) interpretation are acknowledged. The interpretation is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Frey does not cure the deficiencies of Hayawaka and remains silent on “set the target trajectory to cause a wheel of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking device”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by Applicant, Frey teaches setting a trajectory of the vehicle so the vehicle avoids driving over objects O in parking space P. In [0047] and figure 2, Frey discloses an embodiment where the object O is a groundlock device, which blocks parking space P against unauthorized entry based on a locked or unlocked state. Since Frey discloses controlling the trajectory of the vehicle so the vehicle avoids driving over an object O, the object O being a groundlock device, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hayakawa and Frey in combination.
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 1-6 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: 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 including a camera sensor and one of a radar sensor or a LiDAR sensor, and configured to acquire information on a target around 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 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 further configured to, determine whether an entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device; in response to determining that the entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area, determine whether the entry prevention parking lock device is in an unlocked state; and in response to determining that the entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area and is in the unlocked state, 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 further configured to, determine whether an entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area based on at least the information acquired by the target information acquisition device; in response to determining that the entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area, determine whether the entry prevention parking lock device is in an unlocked state; and in response to determining that the entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area and is in the unlocked state, 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 present and 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 1 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, the target information acquisition device including a camera sensor and one of a radar sensor or a LiDAR sensor. 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; determining a type of the parking lock device present in the parking area and an operation status of the parking lock device; and setting, when determination is made that the parking lock device is present in the parking area, the type of the parking lock device is an entry prevention parking lock device and the entry prevention parking lock device 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; determining a type of the parking lock device present in the parking area and an operation status of the parking lock device; and setting, when determination is made that the parking lock device is present in the parking area, the type of the parking lock device is an entry prevention parking lock device and the entry prevention parking lock device 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 entry into the parking space. The vehicle can detect this parking lock, classify the detected parking lock based on specific properties, and autonomously perform parking maneuvers based on the classified 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, the target information acquisition device including a camera sensor and one of a radar sensor or a LiDAR sensor. 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; determine a type of the parking lock device present in the parking area and an operation status of the parking lock device; and set, when determination is made that the parking lock device is present in the parking area, the type of the parking lock device is an entry prevention parking lock device and the entry prevention parking lock device 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; determine a type of the parking lock device present in the parking area and an operation status of the parking lock device; and set, when determination is made that the parking lock device is present in the parking area, the type of the parking lock device is an entry prevention parking lock device and the entry prevention parking lock device 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 entry into the parking space. The vehicle can detect this parking lock, classify the detected parking lock based on specific properties, and autonomously perform parking maneuvers based on the classified 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 6, Hayakawa and Frey in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Hayakawa additionally teaches wherein the determining of whether the entry prevention parking lock device is present in the parking area is performed after receiving an instruction to move the vehicle from the parking start position to the parking completion position along the target trajectory. See at least [0037]-[0038], [0078]-[0080], and figure 2, step S109, wherein the step of executing parking assistance is only performed after receiving a user input at a switch instructing the vehicle to start the parking process from a start position to the selected parking spot. See at least [0112]-[0113] and figure 9, wherein step S201 is performed after initiation of the parking assistance. This step includes detecting any obstacles present in the parking area. See at least [0115], wherein the obstacle is a cone which blocks the parking space.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Frey as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20240166239 A1, filed November 21st, 2022, hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claim 7, Hayakawa and Frey in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Hayakawa remains silent on wherein the determining of whether the entry prevention parking lock device is in the unlocked state is based on a deep neural network based on the information acquired by the target information acquisition device.
Frey teaches wherein the determining of whether the entry prevention parking lock device is in the unlocked state is based on the information acquired by the target information acquisition 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 present and raised (locked) or lowered (unlocked).
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 detecting that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is not in a locking 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 and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Liu teaches a deep neural network. See at least [0067], wherein determining and identifying detected objects from acquired information is performed using a deep learning network such as a convolutional neural network.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Hayakawa with Liu’s deep neural network. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to determine if they can safely drive over detected objects, and generated trajectories that enable vehicles to drive over detected objects, as recognized by Liu (see at least [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Hayakawa and Frey in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Hayakawa remains silent on wherein the target trajectory is set to cause all wheels of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device.
Liu teaches wherein the target trajectory is set to cause all wheels of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device. See at least [0063] and [0071], wherein a trajectory of the vehicle is determined to allow the vehicle to drive over the object, wherein the object passes between the wheels of the vehicle and no part of the vehicle touches any part of the object.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Hayakawa with Liu’s target trajectory set to cause all wheels of the vehicle not to pass over the entry prevention parking lock device. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to determine if they can safely drive over detected objects, and generated trajectories that enable vehicles to drive over detected objects, as recognized by Liu (see at least [0016]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Frey in combination as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20200361414 A1, with an earliest priority date of May 16th, 2019, hereinafter “Noguchi”/
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa and Frey in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Hayakawa additionally teaches wherein the determining is based on communication with a control device of the parking area. See at least [0043]-[0044], wherein the vehicle identifies available parking spaces based on communication with an external server of the parking area.
Hayakawa remains silent on determining whether the entry prevention parking lock device is in the unlocked state, based on radio communication.
Frey teaches determining whether the entry prevention parking lock device is in the unlocked state. 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 present and raised (locked) or lowered (unlocked).
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 detecting that an entry prevention parking lock device is present and is not in a locking 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 and their states, as recognized by Frey (see at least [0013]-[0015]).
Noguchi teaches radio communication. See at least [0039], wherein the vehicle communicates, using transmitted radio waves, with a parking lot management device.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Hayakawa with Noguchi’s radio communication. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to autonomously park in a parking area while reducing inconvenience, as recognized by Noguchi (see at least [0004]-[0006]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights