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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US 2022/0299993) in view of Lavoie (US 2019/0243380)
As to claim 1 Fujiwara discloses a parking brake system of a vehicle, the parking brake system comprising:
a first user input device located external to the vehicle, wherein the first user input device is configured to cause the vehicle to park in response to user input received via the first user input device (Paragraph 72 “When the user performs an operation input with the input/output unit 38, the operation terminal 3 transmits an operation amount to the action plan unit 43. The action plan unit 43 moves the vehicle along the trajectory based on the recognition result of the external environment recognizing unit 41 and the received operation amount, thereby to perform a driving process of moving the vehicle to the parking position. Namely, the action plan unit 43 corresponds to the moving body control unit which performs a driving process of moving the moving body (vehicle) to the target position (parking position).”); and
a second user input device located internal to the vehicle, wherein the second user input device is configured to cause the vehicle to park and unpark in response to respective user inputs received via the second user input device (Paragraph 48 “The parking main switch 34 receives the input operation by the occupant to execute selected one of an automatic parking process (autonomous parking operation) and an automatic unparking process (autonomous unparking operation). The parking main switch 34 is a so-called momentary switch that is turned on only while a pressing operation (pushing operation) is performed by the occupant. The selection input member 35 receives a selection operation by the occupant related to selection of the automatic parking process and the automatic unparking process. The selection input member 35 may consist of a rotary select switch, which preferably requires pressing as the selection operation.”).
Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose that the first user input device is located external but on the vehicle
Lavole teaches that the first user input device is located external but on the vehicle, and wherein because the first user input device is on the vehicle, a user is required to be at the vehicle to provide the user input(Abstract “The computing platform receives, via the accelerometers, signals indicative of a stop command associated with a voice. Additionally, the computing platform validates the stop command when the voice either is authorized or originates from within an emergency zone. The autonomy unit prevents autonomous motion of the vehicle in response to receiving the validated stop command.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Fujiwara to include the teachings of an input device external to the vehicle for the purpose of providing parking instructions to the vehicle.
As to claim 2 Fujiwara discloses a parking brake system, wherein the first user input device is further configured to cause the vehicle to unpark in response to another user input received via the first user input device (Paragraph 52).
As to claim 10 Fujiwara discloses a parking brake system wherein the first user input device comprises a button, a switch, a wheel, a slider, a dial, a knob, a touch-sensitive screen/pad, a microphone for audio input, or a camera for video input (Paragraph 51).
As to claim 11 Fujiwara discloses a parking brake system wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous driving system or a highly-automated driving (HAD) system (Paragraph 52).
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
` As to claim 13 Fujiwara discloses a method wherein the user input is received after an autonomous driving system or a highly-automated driving (HAD) system of the vehicle causes the vehicle to pull over (Paragraph 52).
As to claim 14 Fujiwara discloses a method further comprising: providing an indication visible external to the vehicle that the vehicle is parked (Paragraph 73).
As to claim 15 Fujiwara discloses a method wherein the user input device located external to the vehicle is part of a parking control unit configured with park-only capability (Paragraph 53).
As to claim 16 Fujiwara discloses a method wherein the user input device located external to the vehicle is part of a parking control unit configured with park/unpark capability (Paragraph 52).
As to claim 17 Fujiwara discloses a method wherein the user input device located external to the vehicle is part of a parking control unit configured with park-with-momentary-unpark capability (Paragraph 52).
As to claim 19 Fujiwara discloses a method wherein the user input device comprises an electronic interface with a parking brake system of the vehicle (Paragraph 39).
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
Claims 3-8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US 2022/0299993) in view of Lavoie (US 2019/0243380) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Samayamantula (US 2026/0061976)
As to claim 3 Samayamantula teaches a parking brake system, wherein:
the first user input device is coupled with a valve configured to open in response to the user input received via the first user input device(Paragraph 14).; and
opening the valve allows a flow of pressurized air that causes a movement of the second user input device that causes the vehicle to park (Paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Fujiwara to include the teachings of a valve configured to open in response to a user input for the purpose causing the vehicle to park.
As to claim 4 Samayamantula teaches a parking brake system wherein:
the parking brake system further comprises a third user input device located internal to the vehicle, the third user input device being configured to cause a trailer to park and unpark in response to respective user inputs received via the third user input device(Paragraph 15); and
opening the valve allows a flow of pressurized air that causes a movement of the third user input device that causes the trailer to park (Paragraph 15).
As to claim 5 Samayamantula teaches a parking brake system wherein:
the second user input device is configured to cause the vehicle to park by sending an electronic signal to an electrically-controlled solenoid valve in a pneumatic valve module (Paragraph 15); and
opening the valve allows a flow of pressurized air to the pneumatic valve module, which causes the vehicle to park (Paragraph 15).
As to claim 6 Samayamantula teaches a parking brake system wherein:
allowing the flow of pressurized air to the pneumatic valve module further causes the electronic control unit to park a trailer (Paragraph 14).
As to claim 7 Fujiwara in view of Samayamantula teaches a parking brake system wherein:
the first user input device is part of an electronic control unit (Fujiwara Paragraph 72); and
the first user input device is configured to cause the vehicle to park by causing the electronic control unit to send an electrical signal to an electrically-controlled solenoid valve to close in response to the user input received via the first user input device(Samayamantula Paragraph 14).
As to claim 8 Fujiwara in view of Samayamantula teaches a parking brake system wherein:
the first user input device is further configured to cause a trailer to park by causing the electronic control unit to send the electrical signal (Fujiwara Paragraph 72, Samayamantula Paragraph 14-15).
As to claim 18 Samayamantula teaches a method wherein the user input device comprises a pneumatic interface with a parking brake system of the vehicle (Paragraph 15).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US 2022/0299993) in view of Lavoie (US 2019/0243380) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Van Thiel (US 2024/0375627)
As to claim 9 Van Thiel teaches a parking brake system wherein the first user input device comprises a push button and the second user input device comprises a push-pull button (Paragraph 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Fujiwara to include a push-pull button for the purpose of activating and deactivating the parking brake system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights