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 Amendment
1. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 12-20 are new.
3. Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are canceled.
4. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11 are currently amended.
5. The 101 rejection to Claim 11 has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2, 5-7, and 10, 12-15, and 17-20, have been included based on its dependency.
7. The limitation in Claim 1 with new matter recites: “the predetermined threshold angle includes a first predetermined threshold angle and a second predetermined threshold angle which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, and when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed, the first predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle, and when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed, which is faster than the first speed, the second predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle.”
Applicant has pointed out where the amended claim is supposed to be supported. However, there does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitations amended into the independent claim in the application filed. The amendment narrows the operation range including a first and second predetermined threshold angle that is set at first and second speeds of the vehicle. The specification sets a determination threshold for the steering angle to an angle smaller than the predetermined angle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize changing the operation range in accordance with the speed of the vehicle is not equivalent to setting the first predetermined threshold angle when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed and setting the second predetermined threshold angle when a speed of the vehicle is a second speed faster than the first speed.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the invention had possession of setting the first predetermined threshold angle when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed and setting the second predetermined threshold angle when a speed of the vehicle is a second speed faster than the first speed.
8. Claims 11 and 16 have the same limitations as Claim 1 except for they are separate independent claims but are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-13, and 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harai (US 20220402483 A1) in view of Kodera (US 20220089218 A1).
13. Regarding Claim 1, Harai teaches a parking assistance apparatus performing parking assistance based on a route of a vehicle in teaching travel, the parking assistance apparatus comprising (Harai: [0013] and [0024]):
A processor configured to: store the route of the vehicle in the teaching travel (Harai: [0046]);
Determine whether an operation amount of a driver in the teaching travel of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined range during the teaching travel (Harai: [0036] and [0055]),
And execute predetermined processing in a case where the operation amount exceeds the predetermined range during the teaching travel (Harai: [0056]),
Wherein the operation amount includes a steering angle (Harai: [0055]),
In executing the predetermined process, the processor notifies the driver by a speaker or a display, in a case where the steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold angle (Harai: [0055]).
Harai fails to explicitly teach the predetermined threshold angle includes a first predetermined threshold angle and a second predetermined threshold angle which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed, the first predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle, and when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed, which is faster than the first speed, the second predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kodera teaches the predetermined threshold angle includes a first predetermined threshold angle and a second predetermined threshold angle which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed, the first predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle, and when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed, which is faster than the first speed, the second predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle (Kodera: [0095] Note that setting the steering angle threshold according to the vehicle speed is equivalent to a predetermined threshold angle including a first and second predetermined threshold angle. Also note that the steering angle becomes smaller as the vehicle speed becomes higher is equivalent to the vehicle speed at a second speed faster than the first speed, setting the second predetermined threshold angle (which is smaller than the first predetermined angle).).
Harai and Kodera are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle steering control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harai to incorporate the teachings of Kodera to set the first predetermined threshold angle when a speed is a first speed or set the second predetermined threshold angle when a speed is the second faster speed because it provides the benefit of securing stability of the vehicle at different driving speeds, as explicitly explained in [0005] of Kodera.
14. Regarding Claim 2, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Harai teaches the processor notifies the driver that the operation amount is outside the predetermined range (Harai: [0056]).
15. Regarding Claim 5, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Harai teaches the processor notifies the driver by changing a predetermined display content on the display of the vehicle from a display content before execution of the predetermined processing (Harai: [0056]).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Harai teaches the processor notifies the driver by outputting sound from the speaker of the vehicle (Harai: [0056]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Harai teaches in a case where the operation amount continues to exceed the predetermined range after the predetermined processing is executed, the processor continues to execute the predetermined processing (Harai: [0056]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Harai teaches a parking assistance method by a processor for performing parking assistance based on a route of a vehicle in teaching travel, the parking assistance method comprising (Harai: [0013] and [0024]):
Storing the route of the vehicle in the teaching travel (Harai: [0046]);
Determining whether an operation amount of a driver in the teaching travel of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined range during the teaching travel (Harai: [0036] and [0055]);
And executing predetermined processing in a case where the operation amount exceeds the predetermined range during the teaching travel (Harai: [0056]),
wherein the operation amount includes a steering angle (Harai: [0055]),
The executing the predetermined process includes controlling, by the processor, a speaker or a display to output a notification to the driver, in a case where the steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold angle (Harai: [0055]).
Harai fails to explicitly teach the predetermined threshold angle includes a first predetermined threshold angle and a second predetermined threshold angle which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, and when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed, the first predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle, and when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed, which is faster than the first speed, the second predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kodera teaches the predetermined threshold angle includes a first predetermined threshold angle and a second predetermined threshold angle which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, and when a speed of the vehicle is a first speed, the first predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle, and when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed, which is faster than the first speed, the second predetermined threshold angle is set as the predetermined threshold angle (Kodera: [0095] Note that setting the steering angle threshold according to the vehicle speed is equivalent to a predetermined threshold angle including a first and second predetermined threshold angle. Also note that the steering angle becomes smaller as the vehicle speed becomes higher is equivalent to the vehicle speed at a second speed faster than the first speed, setting the second predetermined threshold angle (which is smaller than the first predetermined angle).).
Harai and Kodera are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle steering control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harai to incorporate the teachings of Kodera to set the first predetermined threshold angle when a speed is a first speed or set the second predetermined threshold angle when a speed is the second faster speed because it provides the benefit of securing stability of the vehicle at different driving speeds, as explicitly explained in [0005] of Kodera.
19. Regarding Claim 12, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Harai teaches the speaker or the display is controlled by the processor to output the notification indicating that the operation amount is outside the predetermined range (Harai: [0056]).
20. Regarding Claim 13, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Harai teaches the display is controlled by the processor to output the notification by changing a predetermined display content on the display from a display content before execution of the predetermined processing (Harai: [0056]).
21. Regarding Claim 15, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Harai teaches the speaker is controlled by the processor to output sound as the notification (Harai: [0056]).
22. Regarding Claim 16, Harai teaches a parking assistance method for performing parking assistance based on a route of a vehicle in teaching travel, the parking assistance method comprising (Harai: [0013] and [0024]):
Storing the route of the vehicle in the teaching travel (Harai: [0046]);
And controlling, by a processor, a speaker or a display to output a notification to a driver of the vehicle, in a case where a steering angle operated by the driver in the teaching travel is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold angle during the teaching travel (Harai: [0055]).
Harai fails to explicitly teach the predetermined threshold angle is set to a first predetermined threshold angle when the speed of the vehicle is a first speed, and the predetermined threshold angle is set to a second predetermined threshold angle, which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed which is faster than the first speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kodera teaches the predetermined threshold angle is set to a first predetermined threshold angle when the speed of the vehicle is a first speed, and the predetermined threshold angle is set to a second predetermined threshold angle, which is smaller than the first predetermined threshold angle, when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed which is faster than the first speed (Kodera: [0095] Note that the steering angle becomes smaller as the vehicle speed becomes higher is equivalent to the vehicle speed at a second speed faster than the first speed, setting the second predetermined threshold angle (which is smaller than the first predetermined angle).).
Harai and Kodera are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle steering control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harai to incorporate the teachings of Kodera to set the first predetermined threshold angle when a speed is a first speed or set the second predetermined threshold angle when a speed is the second faster speed because it provides the benefit of securing stability of the vehicle at different driving speeds, as explicitly explained in [0005] of Kodera.
23. Regarding Claim 17, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Harai teaches the speaker or the display is controlled by the processor to output the notification indicating that the steering angle is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold angle (Harai: [0056]).
24. Regarding Claim 18, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Harai teaches the display is controlled by the processor to output the notification by changing a predetermined display content on the display from a display content before outputting the notification (Harai: [0056]).
25. Regarding Claim 20, Harai and Kodera remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Harai teaches the speaker is controlled by the processor to output sound as the notification (Harai: [0056]).
26. Claims 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harai (US 20220402483 A1), in view of Kodera (US 20220089218 A1), and in further view of Maruoka (US 20200317267 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 6, Harai and Kodera remains as applied above in Claim 5.
Harai fails to explicitly teach the predetermined display content is a predicted course line of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maruoka teaches the predetermined display content is a predicted course line of the vehicle (Maruoka: [0087] and [0088]).
Harai, Kodera, and Maruoka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harai and Kodera to incorporate the teachings of Maruoka for the display content to be a predicted course line of the vehicle because it provides the benefit of accurately guiding the vehicle by increasing awareness of the driver. A guide line also improves the identification of a target parking position for the vehicle. Maruoka explicitly explains the benefit to improving the display content in at least [0011] and [0087].
28. Regarding Claim 14, Harai and Kodera remains as applied above in Claim 13.
Harai fails to explicitly teach the predetermined display content is a predicted course line of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maruoka teaches the predetermined display content is a predicted course line of the vehicle (Maruoka: [0087] and [0088]).
Harai, Kodera, and Maruoka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harai and Kodera to incorporate the teachings of Maruoka for the display content to be a predicted course line of the vehicle because it provides the benefit of accurately guiding the vehicle by increasing awareness of the driver. A guide line also improves the identification of a target parking position for the vehicle. Maruoka explicitly explains the benefit to improving the display content in at least [0011] and [0087].
29. Regarding Claim 19, Harai and Kodera remains as applied above in Claim 18.
Harai fails to explicitly teach the predetermined display content is a predicted course line of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maruoka teaches the predetermined display content is a predicted course line of the vehicle (Maruoka: [0087] and [0088]).
Harai, Kodera, and Maruoka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harai and Kodera to incorporate the teachings of Maruoka for the display content to be a predicted course line of the vehicle because it provides the benefit of accurately guiding the vehicle by increasing awareness of the driver. A guide line also improves the identification of a target parking position for the vehicle. Maruoka explicitly explains the benefit to improving the display content in at least [0011] and [0087].
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Kodera (US 20220089218 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of setting a first predetermined threshold angle when the speed of the vehicle is a first speed and setting a second predetermined threshold angle when the speed of the vehicle is a second speed faster than the first speed in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraph [0095]. Kodera teaches the steering threshold angle is calculated based on the speed of the vehicle. The angle threshold becomes smaller as the speed of the vehicle increases.
31. Harai (US 20220402483 A1), in view of Kodera (US 20220089218 A1), and in further view of Maruoka (US 20200317267 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
32. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-11 remain rejected and Claims 12-20 are newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
33. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights