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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 113 743.0, filed on 05/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, each of the claims recite the limitation “emergency parking position”. The term “emergency” does not hold patentable weight because any parking position can be considered an “emergency” parking position due to the subjectiveness of the term “emergency”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation an “emergency parking position” is being considered any type of parking position.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, each of the claims recite the limitation “safe parking”. The term “safe” does not hold patentable weight because any parking position can be considered “safe” due to the subjectiveness of the term “safe”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation “safe parking” is being considered any type of location for parking.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, each of the claims recite the limitation “emergency parking position”. The limitation “emergency parking location” is not sufficiently described in the specification. At most the specification, see at least Paragraph 0023, discusses an “emergency” as being “a situation in which there is an imminent danger to property, in particular the motor vehicle, animals or the physical integrity of people, in particular the occupants of the motor vehicle. An emergency or an emergency situation is in particular a situation in which the motor vehicle has a malfunction, i.e., in which a component and/or a system of the motor vehicle has a malfunction. A system of the motor vehicle is, for example, a driver assistance system. An emergency or an emergency situation is, in particular, a situation in which an at least partially automated driving function of the motor vehicle exhibits a fault. The terms “emergency” and “emergency situation” can be used synonymously.”. However, the specification fails to describe what an “emergency parking position” is. Therefore, the claim limitation “emergency parking position” is unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitation “emergency parking position” is being interpreted to mean any type of position that a vehicle can park at.
Claims 2-18 further depend on claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, each of the claims recite the limitation “safe parking”. The limitation “safe parking” is not sufficiently described in the specification. At most the specification, see at least Paragraph 0123, discusses “safe” as being “refers in particular to the topic of accidents and accident prevention. “Safe” therefore means in particular that measures are taken to ensure the correct functioning of the apparatus and/or the system and/or the storage medium and/or the execution of the process steps.”. However, the specification fails to describe what “safe parking” is. Therefore, the claim limitation “safe parking” is unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitation “safe parking” is being interpreted to mean any type of parking location.
Claims 2-18 further depend on claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vieten et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,529,233 B1) hereinafter Vieten.
Regarding claim 1, Vieten discloses a method for finding an emergency parking position for safe parking of a motor vehicle, comprising:
generating a plurality of control signals for controlling a drone having a monitoring facility [see Column 5 line – discusses that a controller causes a drone to automatically take off, see Column 8 lines 29-35 – discusses that the drone is enabled to take off and the drone travels to a zone];
outputting the control signals to control the drone to monitor an environment of the motor vehicle using the monitoring facility and to output a monitoring data based on the monitoring [see Column 8 lines 35-39 – discusses that the drone travels to a zone and captures one or more images of one or more areas in the zone using a camera, see Column 5 lines 60-62 - discusses the drone transmits the images to the controller for an analysis]; and
after outputting the control signals, receiving the monitoring data from the drone,
analyzing the monitoring data to find an emergency parking position for safe parking of the motor vehicle [see Column 5 lines 62-64 and Column 8 lines 38-44 – discusses the controller analyzing the one or more images, the controller determines whether there is at least one unoccupied parking spot within the images (analysis)] in an emergency [see Column 8 lines 15-26 - discusses conditions (these conditions are being interpreted as emergency conditions) of the vehicle that result in the drone searching for a parking location: “At block 306, the park assist controller 156 determines whether all required conditions are satisfied for activating the drone 110. For example, the park assist controller 156 may enable the drone 110 to take-off when: (1) an estimated time for the vehicle to arrive at the destination is less than a threshold time…In some examples, the drone 110 may be enabled when the vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the destination. In some examples, the drone 110 may be enabled when a velocity of the vehicle is less than a threshold velocity”,], and
outputting an analysis result of the analysis of the monitoring data [see Column 8 lines 45-52 - discusses generating a list of unoccupied parking spots (analysis result), and see Column 8 lines 61-62 - the list is presented to a user].
Regarding claim 6, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein a plurality of emergency route signals are generated which represent an emergency route from a start position to a found emergency parking position for the motor vehicle, the emergency route signals are output [see Column 6 lines 22-26 - discusses calculating an updated route from the current position of the vehicle to the selected unoccupied parking spot, see (38) - discusses that the current position, the route, and the onoccupied parking spot(s) is/are displayed].
Regarding claim 7, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein the analyzing comprises determining an optimum emergency parking position when a plurality of emergency parking positions are found [see Column 6 lines 2-10 - discusses that the list is sorted based on a vehicle ETA to an unoccupied parking spots].
Regarding claim 8, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein a plurality of route signals are received which represent a current route of the motor vehicle, the control signals are generated based on the route signals and/or the monitoring data is analyzed based on the route signals [see Column 7 lines 11-17 - discusses that a vehicle route is displayed, see Column 8 lines 13-14 - the controller generates the vehicle route].
Regarding claim 9, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein a plurality of environmental signals are received which represent the environment of the motor vehicle, the control signals are generated based on the environmental signals see Column 5 lines 12-21 - discusses that the drone is enabled when environmental sensors (rain sensor, temperature sensor) on the vehicle indicate the environment has safe weather, the controller causes the drone to automatically take off when there is safe weather].
Regarding claim 12, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein the method is only started in an emergency or the method is started proactively before an emergency occurs [see Column 8 lines 15-26 - At block 306, the park assist controller 156 determines whether all required conditions are satisfied for activating the drone 110. For example, the park assist controller 156 may enable the drone 110 to take-off when: (1) an estimated time for the vehicle to arrive at the destination is less than a threshold time…In some examples, the drone 110 may be enabled when the vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the destination. In some examples, the drone 110 may be enabled when a velocity of the vehicle is less than a threshold velocity.].
Regarding claim 14, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein the control signals are generated such that, when controlling the drone based on the control signals, the monitoring of the environment comprises monitoring a road traffic in the environment of the motor vehicle [see Column 5 lines 52-54 - discusses prioritizing a search area based on the degree of traffic in the area].
Regarding claim 17, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein the control signals are generated such that, when controlling the drone based on the control signals, the monitoring of the environment comprises live monitoring of the environment of the motor vehicle such that the monitoring data comprises live monitoring data [see Figure 3 and see Column 9 lines 4-8 - depicts the drone travelling to selected unoccupied spot 332, monitoring the selected unoccupied parking spot 334].
Regarding claim 18, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Vieten further discloses wherein one, more or all steps of the method are performed only when one or more safety conditions are met [see Column 8 lines 15-26 - discusses performing the monitoring using the drone when a safe condition is determined (weather)].
Claims 19-20 are analogous to claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vieten.
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Higuchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0136847 A1) hereinafter Higuchi.
Regarding claim 2, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein analyzing the monitoring data comprises determining a hazard level for a found emergency parking position, the hazard level indicates how endangered the motor vehicle would be in the found emergency parking position and/or how endangered an environment of the found emergency parking position would be if the motor vehicle were parked in the found emergency parking position.
Higuchi discloses wherein analyzing monitoring data comprises determining a hazard level for a found emergency parking position [see Paragraph 0069 - discusses receiving sensor data from a connected vehicle (see Paragraph 0016 - discusses a drone), see Paragraph 0070 - discusses determining an available parking space based on the sensor data, see Paragraph 0074 - discusses determining a safety score for the available parking spaces], the hazard level indicates how endangered a motor vehicle would be in the found emergency parking position [see Paragraph 0074 - discusses that the safety score comprises a likelihood of vehicle vandalism occurring at the parking space].
Higuchi suggests that certain parking spaces are unsafe and may expose drivers and their vehicles to higher rates of theft or vandalism or other crimes if they were to park at such unsafe parking spaces [see Paragraph 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify analysis of monitoring data as taught by Vieten to include determining a hazard level for a found emergency parking position, the hazard level indicates how endangered a motor vehicle would be in the found emergency parking position as taught by Higuchi in order to reduce theft and vandalism of a vehicle when determining a parking space [Higuchi, see Paragraph 0003].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Chan (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0232789 A1) hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 3, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein a plurality of dimension signals are received which represent one or more dimensions of the motor vehicle, the monitoring data is analyzed based on the dimension signals, and the analyzing comprises that a found emergency parking position is checked as to whether the motor vehicle can be parked in the found emergency parking position based on the one or more dimensions.
Chan discloses wherein a plurality of dimension signals are received which represent one or more dimensions of a motor vehicle [see Paragraph 0019 - discusses executing a filtering process to identify suitable parking spots, by retrieving vehicle dimensions], monitoring data is analyzed based on the dimension signals, and analyzing comprises that a found emergency parking position is checked as to whether the motor vehicle can be parked in the found emergency parking position based on the one or more dimensions [see Paragraph 0024 - discusses performing an comparison using vehicle dimensions with the actual dimensions for the parking spots].
Chan suggests that this ensures that a vehicle will fit within a parking spot [see Paragraph 0019]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Vieten to receive a plurality of dimension signals are received which represent one or more dimensions of a motor vehicle and checking as to whether the motor vehicle can be parked in the found emergency parking position based on the one or more dimensions as taught by Chan in order to ensure that a vehicle will fit within a parking spot [Chan, see Paragraph 0019]
Regarding claim 4, Vieten discloses the inventio with respect to claim 1.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein the analyzing comprises checking that a found emergency parking position can be approached by the motor vehicle.
Chan discloses wherein analyzing comprises checking that a found emergency parking position can be approached by a motor vehicle [see Paragraphs 0023-0024 - discusses that images of an actual parking spot are compared to vehicle dimensions].
Chan suggests that this ensures that a vehicle will fit within a parking spot [see Paragraph 0019]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Vieten to checking that a found emergency parking position can be approached by a motor vehicle as taught by Chan in order to ensure that a vehicle will fit within a parking spot [Chan, see Paragraph 0019]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Chan further in view of Okamura et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0122362 A1) hereinafter Okamura.
Regarding claim 5, Vieten and Chan disclose the invention with respect to claim 4.
However, the combination of Vieten and Chan fails to disclose wherein a plurality of error signals are received which represent an error in an at least partially automated driving function of the motor vehicle, the monitoring data is analyzed based on the error signals, and the analyzing comprises checking whether, despite the error in the at least partially automated driving function, the found emergency parking position can be approached by the motor vehicle in the at least partially automated manner.
Okamura discloses wherein a plurality of error signals are received which represent an error in an at least partially automated driving function of the motor vehicle, monitoring data is analyzed based on the error signals [see Paragraphs 0081-0083 – discusses analyzing the detection result of a parking lot sensor (see Paragraph 0065 – discusses a camera) with the data (speed, location, sensor coverage) obtained from an autonomous vehicle], and the analyzing comprises checking whether, despite the error in the at least partially automated driving function, a found emergency parking position can be approached by the motor vehicle in the at least partially automated manner [see Paragraphs 0084-0085 - discusses that when the abnormality has little influence on automated driving, then candidate parking spaces are analyzed to determine which parking space (evacuation space) has the shortest route, see Paragraph 0088 – discusses that when there are no parking spaces that the autonomous vehicle moves to another spot (another evacuation space)].
Okamura suggests instructing autonomous driving vehicles to evacuate to an appropriate evacuation space [see Paragraph 0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Vieten to receive a plurality of error signals which represent an error in an at least partially automated driving function of the motor vehicle and check whether, despite the error in the at least partially automated driving function, a found emergency parking position can be approached by the motor vehicle in the at least partially automated manner as taught by Okamura in order to evacuate an autonomous vehicle to an appropriate evacuation space [Okamura, see Paragraph 0011].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Sofman et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0293573 A1) hereinafter Sofman.
Regarding claim 10, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 9.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein the environmental signals include a plurality of signals transmitted by another motor vehicle located in front of the motor vehicle with respect to a direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
Sofman discloses wherein environmental signals include a plurality of signals transmitted by another motor vehicle located in front of a motor vehicle with respect to a direction of travel of the motor vehicle [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses that a computing system receives weather data from a lead/preceding vehicle].
Sofman suggests minimizing the risk of travel through adverse weather on a route a vehicle will be travelling through [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the environmental signals as taught by Vieten to include a plurality of signals transmitted by another motor vehicle located in front of a motor vehicle with respect to a direction of travel of the motor vehicle as taught by Sofman in order to minimize the risk of travel through adverse weather on a route a vehicle will be travelling through [Sofman, see Paragraph 0022].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Ayabe et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0202476 A1) hereinafter Ayabe.
Regarding claim 11, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 9.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein the environmental signals include a plurality of signals transmitted by a traffic control center.
Ayabe discloses wherein environmental signals include a plurality of signals transmitted by a traffic control center [see Paragraph 0030 - discusses receiving road traffic information from a traffic control center 100].
Ayabe suggests determining current/future traffic congestion in order to perform route guidance [see Paragraphs 0031]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the environmental signals as taught by Vieten to include a plurality of signals transmitted by a traffic control center as taught by Ayabe in order to perform route guidance in consideration of current/future traffic congestion [Ayabe, see Paragraph 0031].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Okamura.
Regarding claim 13, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 9.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein, based on the analysis result, an infrastructure assistance data for an infrastructure-supported assistance of the motor vehicle during an at least partially automated guided journey to a found emergency parking position is determined and transmitted to the motor vehicle.
Okamura discloses wherein, based on an analysis result, an infrastructure assistance data for an infrastructure-supported assistance of the motor vehicle during an at least partially automated guided journey to a found emergency parking position is determined and transmitted to the motor vehicle [see Paragraphs 0075-0083 - discusses determining a failure of an autonomous driving vehicle using a camera and received sensor data of the autonomous vehicle, see Paragraphs 0098 and 0100-0101 - discusses determining there is a failure in the autonomous driving and that the vehicle is evacuated to an evacuation space by remote control instruction, see Paragraph 0104 - discusses calculating the evacuation route for the vehicle and the evacuation route is transmitted to the vehicle].
Okamura suggests instructing autonomous driving vehicles to evacuate to an appropriate evacuation space [see Paragraph 0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Vieten to determine an infrastructure assistance data for an infrastructure-supported assistance of the motor vehicle during an at least partially automated guided journey to a found emergency parking position and transmit the infrastructure assistance data as taught by Okamura in order to evacuate an autonomous vehicle to an appropriate evacuation space [Okamura, see Paragraph 0011].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Takahiro et al. (JP. Publication No. 2018084955 A) hereinafter Takahiro.
Regarding claim 15, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein the monitoring data and/or the analysis result are transmitted to a traffic control center.
Takahiro discloses wherein monitoring data is transmitted to a traffic control center [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses that a transmitting an image to a traffic control center].
Takahiro suggests that the traffic control center analyzes the image for traffic control and police use [see Paragraph 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Vieten to transmit monitoring data to a traffic control center as taught by Takahiro in order for the traffic control center to analyze the images for traffic control and police use [Takahiro, see Paragraph 0040].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieten in view of Larson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0278689 A1) hereinafter Larson.
Regarding claim 16, Vieten discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Vieten fails to disclose wherein, in the emergency, a message is transmitted to one or more road users in a vicinity of the motor vehicle, informing about the emergency and/or about a found emergency parking position and/or about an operation of parking the motor vehicle at the found emergency parking position.
Larson discloses wherein, in an emergency, a message is transmitted to one or more road users in a vicinity of the motor vehicle, informing about the emergency [see Paragraph 0053 - discusses that a message (alert) is transmitted to traffic (road users), and see Paragraph 0050 - discusses that the message (alert) includes information about the nature of a situation].
Larson suggests alerting traffic that is approaching the situation [see Paragraph 0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Vieten to a message to one or more road users in a vicinity of the motor vehicle, informing about an emergency as taught by Larson in order to alert traffic that is approaching the situation [Larson, see Paragraph 0050].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665