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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 5, 2024. Claims 1-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on December 5, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for KR10-2024-0034916 dated March 13, 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 14 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1 and 9 recites an autonomous parking space for a vehicle. It is unclear how the parking space may be autonomous as it is an inanimate object. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting the vehicle as being autonomous.
Each of claims 6 and 14 recites wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the curb exists based on at least one of an amount of decrease in vehicle speed, a slope of decrease in the vehicle speed, and a change in value of a wheel direction sensor which refers back to the limitation determining, by a processor, whether a curb exists in an autonomous parking space for a vehicle of the respective independent claims. The independent claims rely on the curb position for parking of the vehicle. It is unclear how the curb being in existence may be determined based on actions taken after initiating a parking control that depend on the presence of a curb. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting claims 6 and 14 as requiring a confirmation of the curb existing.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0146915 (hereinafter, “Niewiadomski”) in view of CN Pub. No. 113602258 (hereinafter, “Zhang”). Examiner notes that the attached English translation of CN Pub. No. 113602258 is used for citations herein.
Regarding claim 1, Niewiadomski discloses An autonomous parking control method (see at least [0007]-[0010]) comprising:
determining, by a processor, whether a curb exists in an autonomous parking space for a vehicle (see at least [0007]-[0009]; a processor identifies a curb in a parking space for a vehicle);
storing, by the processor, a position of the curb upon concluding that the curb exists (see at least [0007]-[0010]; the processor utilizes the data for later processing (i.e., stores the curb position)).
Additionally, Niewiadomski discloses the parking space having a curb at least at [0007]-[0009]. However, Niewiadomski does not explicitly teach determining, by the processor, whether steering control of the vehicle is required at the curb; and
controlling, by the processor, autonomous parking of the vehicle by adjusting Motor Driven Power Steering (MDPS) steering angle to 0˚ upon concluding that no steering control is required at the curb.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining, by the processor, whether steering control of the vehicle is required at the curb (see at least p. 3; it is determined whether steering is required to park the vehicle); and
controlling, by the processor, autonomous parking of the vehicle by adjusting Motor Driven Power Steering (MDPS) steering angle to 0˚ upon concluding that no steering control is required at the curb (see at least p. 3; once the vehicle is parked which is considered equivalent to determining no more steering is necessary, the power steering system zeros out the motor current by changing the angle of the wheel to zero. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as zeroing the steering angle after the vehicle has parked, because steering control is required while the vehicle is in motion regardless if the steering angle as at zero).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Niewiadomski with the teachings of Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve a user’s autonomous parking experience; see at least Zhang at Background section.
Regarding claim 2, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controlling of the autonomous parking by adjusting the MDPS steering angle to 0˚ includes controlling a steering wheel of the vehicle to be centered (see at least p. 3; once the vehicle is parked which is considered equivalent to determining no more steering is necessary, the power steering system zeros out the motor current by changing the angle of the wheel to zero. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as zeroing the steering angle after the vehicle has parked, because steering control is required while the vehicle is in motion regardless if the steering angle as at zero).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Niewiadomski with the teachings of Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve a user’s autonomous parking experience; see at least Zhang at Background section.
Regarding claim 3, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controlling of the autonomous parking by adjusting the MDPS steering angle to 0˚ includes matching a moving direction of the vehicle with a moving direction of a driving wheel of the vehicle (see at least p. 3; once the vehicle is parked which is considered equivalent to determining no more steering is necessary, the power steering system zeros out the motor current by changing the angle of the wheel to zero. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as zeroing the steering angle after the vehicle has parked, because steering control is required while the vehicle is in motion regardless if the steering angle as at zero. Examiner notes that the moving direction of the vehicle is necessarily determined by the driving direction of the wheel of the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Niewiadomski with the teachings of Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve a user’s autonomous parking experience; see at least Zhang at Background section.
Regarding claim 4, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Niewiadomski discloses further including: controlling, by the processor, the autonomous parking by reducing a steering control speed of the vehicle by an arbitrary percentage of a previous steering speed upon concluding that the steering control is required at the curb (see at least [0015]-[0016]; the output torque (i.e., vehicle control speed) may be decreased while the vehicle is being positioned in the space as it approaches a curb. Examiner notes that steering control, even at center, is required during parking of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Niewiadomski discloses wherein the controlling of the autonomous parking by reducing the steering control speed of the vehicle by the arbitrary percentage of the previous steering speed includes offsetting torque caused by a repulsive force of the curb and a wheel of the vehicle (see at least [0015]-[0016]; the output torque (i.e., vehicle control speed) may be decreased while the vehicle is being positioned in the space as it approaches a curb, and may be set to an amount that is less than what would be necessary to traverse the curb. Examiner notes that decreasing speed as the vehicle approaches a curb necessarily offsets any repulsive force against a wheel of a vehicle as the slower speed results in a smaller impact).
Regarding claim 6, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Niewiadomski discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the curb exists based on at least one of an amount of decrease in vehicle speed, a slope of decrease in the vehicle speed, and a change in value of a wheel direction sensor (see at least [0089]; determining that an object prevents movement of a vehicle (i.e., decrease in vehicle speed) confirms the existence of the curb).
Regarding claim 7, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Niewiadomski discloses wherein the storing of the position of the curb includes storing at least one of coordinates (x, y) indicating the position of the curb, a storage amount of the curb position, a correction amount of the curb position, and a slope of the curb (see at least [0051]-[0052]; the data may be updated over time, including the curb position. Examiner notes that [0038] of the instant specification defines the storage amount as a stored value of the detected curb position continuously updated over time).
Regarding claim 8, Niewiadomski discloses and Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Niewiadomski discloses wherein the position of the curb is identified using a wheel direction sensor (see at least [0089]; determining that an object prevents movement of a vehicle (i.e., decrease in vehicle speed) confirms the existence of the curb. Examiner notes that determining a speed change necessarily requires a wheel direction sensor).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as applied to claims 1-8 above, respectively, and Niewiadomski additionally discloses the memory and processor at least at [0007].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0130698 which relates to autonomously parking a vehicle including steering control; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0257303 which relates to park assist with a focus on steering while parking and a focus on curb determination and tracking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666