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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
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 (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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0193830) in view of Rosas-Maxemin et al. (US 2020/0349617).
As per claim 1, Kim in view of Rosas-Maxemin teaches a method of controlling a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor executing computer instructions stored in a memory, information related to a location of a host vehicle and information related to surroundings of the host vehicle based on sensor information provided by a sensor module and map information provided by a map storing unit (Kim discloses obtains host vehicle position and surrounding obstacles using radar, ultrasonic sensors, cameras [Para 26,46-58]. Sensor-based parking info is collected. Kim also teaches use of sensing information for parking space recognition and obstacle detection. Kim does not explicitly teach map-based combination for entrance detection and processor/memory. Rosas-Maxemin teaches executes processing using local hardware/processor with memory for vehicle detection and data fusion [Para 121-125, 123-130,143]. Rosas-Maxemin teaches obtaining location and surrounding using cameras, sensors, and local machine learning hardware [Para 123-130,134]. Rosas-Maxemin teaches optional integration with map data for parking area identification. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Kim’s functional teachings with Rosas-Maxemin’s processor-executed system to improve vehicle parking control and automation, as combining known sensor processing methods with a known processor-executed system is predictable and routine in the field of autonomous vehicle system. Rosas-Maxemin supplements Kim by providing enhanced dynamic sensor processing and map integration. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.),
determining, by the processor, an entrance of the host vehicle into a parking area based on the location of the host vehicle and the information related to the surroundings (Kim discloses parking form and parking layout determination (perpendicular, parallel, diagonal) [Para 44-59], but does not teach or suggest explicitly determining entrance of a host vehicle into a parking area as a separate step. Rosas-Maxemin teaches explicit detection of entrance to a parking area using sensor and camera information, including local hardware and machine learning analysis of surrounding [Para 144-156]. Rosas-Maxemin teaches explicitly teaches determining entrance into parking area using sensor data and parking [Para 121-125,123-130] Rosas-Maxemin fills the missing limitation of detecting parking area entrance and entrance determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine the entrance determination as taught by Rosas-Maxemin for comprehensive parking control.),
determining, by the processor, a layout of the parking area based on the sensor information and the map information (Kim teaches detection of parking layout and form using sensor information (camera, radar, ultrasonic) [Para 46-50,47-49]. Rosas-Maxemin teaches dynamic determination of parking layout using sensor information and map data [Para 123,130,143]. Rosas-Maxemin reinforce Kim’s teaching and supplements iwht dynamic real-time layout detection. The combination teaches layout determination using sensors and map information.),
determining, by the processor, a location of an obstacle around the host vehicle based on the layout of the parking area (Kim teaches detection of nearby obstacles using ultrasonic and radar sensors, including positions relative to host vehicle and parking layout [Para 52-56]. Rosas-Maxemin teaches dynamic detection of both moving and stationary obstacles around the host vehicle, taking into account parking layout and surrounding vehicles [Para 121-135,153-160]. Rosas-Maxemin improves Kim by adding moving obstacle detection and layout-based calculation. Obstacle detection is explicitly disclosed by Kim while processor execution is reinforced by Rosas-Maxemin.), and
controlling, by the processor, the host vehicle based on a movement of a target vehicle that intersects a target line formed in a longitudinal direction of the host vehicle (Kim teaches comparing movement paths of other vehicles to longitudinal line of host vehicle and generating traffic alert [Para 33,43,66-70,78]. Kim does not explicitly teach controlling host vehicle based on movement, only alert. Rosas-Maxemin teaches control of host vehicle based on movement of surrounding vehicle, including trajectory planning to avoid collision [Para 121,133,148,149]. Rosas-Maxemin fills the limitation by providing active vehicle control rather than only alert. Vehicle control and processor execution is disclosed by Rosas-Maxemin.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Kim and Rosas-Maxemin to improve vehicle parking operations by: 1) incorporating Rosas-Maxemin’s parking area entrance detection with Kim’s parking layout recognition, 2) adding Rosas-Maxemin’s dynamic obstacle detection to complement Kim’s static obstacle detection, and 3) using Rosas-Maxemin’s target vehicle-based vehicle control to enhance Kim’s alert-only functionality. It is because both system process sensor and environmental data in real time and are designed for parking applications. Integration would have been straightforward and predictable. The combination is predictable, addresses the same parking problem space and integrates complementary teachings to enhance vehicle control system.
As per claim 8, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 are 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. Claims 3-7 and 10-14 are objected based on the dependency of claims 2 and 9, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689