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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 11/25/2024. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2025 and 10/29/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claim 11 (see MPEP §2106.03):
As a method, the claim is directed to a statutory category (Step 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 is directed to determining an operation amount of a driver exceeding a range and making a decision based on this determination. This limitation akin to a mental process as a human mind can determine an operation amount of a driver exceeding a threshold. For example, a human mind can make an observation of the driver turning the steering wheel and can determine how much further to turn the steering wheel to maneuver into a parking space (Step 2A, Prong 1).
The applicant does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant has recited a claim in which makes a decision based on an observation (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claim does not provide an inventive concept and the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the lack of additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits imposed on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(I)(a)) (Step 2B).
In conclusion, Claim 11 is directed toward non-subject matter eligible material and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harai (US 20220402483 A1).
7. 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 that determines whether an operation amount of a driver in the teaching travel of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined range (Harai: [0036] and [0055]),
Wherein the processor executes predetermined processing in a case where the operation amount exceeds the predetermined range (Harai: [0056]).
8. Regarding Claim 2, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the predetermined processing is processing for notifying the driver that the operation amount is outside the predetermined range (Harai: [0056]).
9. Regarding Claim 3, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the operation amount is a steering angle, and the processor determines that the operation amount has exceeded the predetermined range in a case where the steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined angle (Harai: [0055]).
10. Regarding Claim 4, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the predetermined processing is processing for applying resistance to an operation performed by the driver (Harai: [0056]).
11. Regarding Claim 5, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the predetermined processing is processing for changing a predetermined display content on a display of the vehicle from a display content before execution of the predetermined processing (Harai: [0056]).
12. Regarding Claim 7, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the predetermined processing is processing for outputting sound from a speaker of the vehicle (Harai: [0056]).
13. Regarding Claim 10, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, 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]).
13. Regarding Claim 11, 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]):
Determining whether an operation amount of a driver in the teaching travel of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined range (Harai: [0036] and [0055]);
And executing predetermined processing in a case where the operation amount exceeds the predetermined range (Harai: [0056]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harai (US 20220402483 A1).
18. Regarding Claim 8, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Harai does not explicitly teach the processor changes an operation range of the driver for the vehicle in accordance with a speed in the teaching travel. However, Harai teaches in [0055] and [0062] to determine if the operation performed by the driver is an oversteer angle operation or a stationary steering operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the operation range of the driver in accordance with the speed in the teaching travel as similarly shown in Harai's [0055] and [0062] use of restriction control based on a stationary steering operation or oversteer angle operation. This provides the benefit of restricting the steering angle at different operation ranges to guide the vehicle into the parking spot based on different speeds of the vehicle (stationary or non-stationary).
19. Regarding Claim 9, Harai remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further teaches the operation amount is a steering angle, and the processor sets a determination threshold for the steering angle to an angle smaller than a predetermined angle in a case where a speed of the vehicle in the teaching travel is higher than a predetermined speed (Harai: [0063] and [0074] Note that the oversteer operation occurs in a case where a speed of the vehicle in the teaching travel is higher than a predetermined speed.).
20. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harai (US 20220402483 A1) in view of Maruoka (US 20200317267 A1).
21. Regarding Claim 6, Harai 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 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 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].
Conclusion
22. 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