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 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.
Claim 9 is 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. While the claim recites a parking space which is neither perpendicular nor diagonal, in light of the specification it remains unclear what sorts of parking spots this could be in reference to. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as indicating a field of view for a parallel parking spot.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1: Yes.) Apparatus claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An apparatus comprising:
at least one sensor;
memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to, by executing the instructions, cause the apparatus to:
obtain, via the at least one sensor, one or more images of a parking area associated with a vehicle;
determine, based on the one or more images, a type of a parking space in the parking area;
adjust, within the parking area, an area of interest by adjusting, based on the type of the parking space, at least one of a size of the area of interest or an angle of the area of interest based on a default value; and
control, based on the adjusted area of interest, an operation of the vehicle.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is a process of determining a type of parking space and then determining the borders of an area of interest based on the type of parking space. Both of these actions can be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a memory and a processor; these are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. The claim further recites steps of obtaining images of a parking area from a generic sensor and controlling “an operation of the vehicle”. The former is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, whereas the broadest reasonable interpretation of the latter is inclusive of abstract steps such as determining the presence of an object within the area of interest (e.g., claim 7) as well as the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission (e.g., claim 8). (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additionally recited elements are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than either instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, as a result of the high level of generality with which they are recited, the additional elements are all well-understood, routine, and conventional. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claim 10) is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, and 18 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. The claims do not introduce any additional elements; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 16, as discussed above, recite a controlling of the operation of the vehicle which is determining whether an object is present within the area of interest. This is a mental process and no additional elements are recited; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 17, as discussed above, recite a controlling of the operation of the vehicle which is generating a warning message. This is the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (US 20100271238) in view of Kossmann et al. (EP 2887335).
Claim 1.
With respect to Figs. 1 and 2 below, Reed et al. teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
329
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A diagram of areas of interest for a perpendicular parking space (originally Reed Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
410
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: A diagram of areas of interest for a diagonal parking space (originally Reed Fig. 5)
at least one sensor
(Reed – [0003]) “from a field of view of a first side sensor, determining a first side portion of interest”
memory storing instructions
(Reed – [0011]) “The ECU 22 may include memory 24, such as PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, Flash, or other types of memory”
at least one processor
(Reed – [0011]) “The ECU 22 may include multiple separate processors in communication with one another”
determine, based on the one or more images, a type of a parking space in the parking area
(Reed – Abstract) “The subject of the present invention is a host vehicle that determines a parking angle while backing out of a parking space and employs this parking angle when using a cross traffic alert system.”
adjust, within the parking area, an area of interest by adjusting, based on the type of the parking space, at least one of a size of the area of interest or an angle of the area of interest based on a default value
(Reed – [0017, 0018]) “For this particular parking angle, parts of this wide total viewing angle 60 are not needed for cross traffic alert. … What remains are a right portion of interest 76 and a left portion of interest 77”
(Reed – [0019]) “the beam pattern may be adjusted to increase the energy directed toward the areas of interest while the beam energy directed toward the areas not of interest is reduced.”
control, based on the adjusted area of interest, an operation of the vehicle
(Reed – [0003]) “activating the cross traffic alert when the vehicle is backing out of the parking space if an object is detected in the first side portion of interest”
Reed et al. does not explicitly teach obtaining images of a parking area; however, Kossmann et al. teaches:
obtain, via the at least one sensor, one or more images of a parking area associated with a vehicle
(Kossmann – [0011]) “This detection device may include… at least one camera which provides images of the surroundings of the motor vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, replacing the radar sensors of Reed et al. with the cameras of Kossmann et al. Kossmann et al. teaches the use of a camera as interchangeable with the use of a radar sensor (Kossmann – [0011]) and both Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. are directed towards systems for detecting hazards while backing out of a parking space; therefore, this substitution of one known element for another could be performed with predictable results, namely, a cross-traffic alert system which obtains surroundings data from a camera.
Claim 2.
The combination of Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Reed et al. further teaches:
wherein the type of the parking space comprises at least one of a parking space for perpendicular parking or a parking space for diagonal parking
(Reed – Abstract) “The subject of the present invention is a host vehicle that determines a parking angle while backing out of a parking space and employs this parking angle when using a cross traffic alert system.”
Claim 3.
The combination of Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. While Reed et al. teaches changing the angle of view of an area of interest, Reed et al. does not explicitly teach adjusting a longitudinal distance. However, Kossmann et al. teaches, with respect to Fig. 3 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
392
759
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: A definition of the monitoring area according to Kossmann et al. (originally Kossmann Fig. 4)
adjusting, based on the type of the parking space being a parking space for perpendicular parking, a longitudinal distance of the area of interest from the vehicle to be less than the default value
(Kossmann – [0039]) “To define the monitoring area 20, one of sectors 22 to 27 is then selected, here for example sector 22. The monitoring area 20 (hatched area) is defined as a sub-area of the selected sector 22 up to a distance value 28 from the motor vehicle 1”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the cross-traffic alert system of Reed et al. with the monitoring area distances of Kossmann et al. Both Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. are directed towards detection of obstacles while backing out of a parking space; therefore, this modification can be done with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because a reduction in size of an area to be monitored allows for faster processing of the data.
Claim 4.
The combination of Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Reed et al. further teaches:
determining, based on the type of the parking space being a parking space for diagonal parking, a diagonal parking angle
(Reed – Abstract) “The subject of the present invention is a host vehicle that determines a parking angle while backing out of a parking space and employs this parking angle when using a cross traffic alert system.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Reed et al. further teaches:
changing, based on the diagonal parking angle, at least one of the size of the area of interest or the angle of the area of interest
(Reed – [0021]) “Since the host angle 16 is now at an angle other than a normal angle to the cross traffic, the areas of interest and the areas not of interest for cross traffic are not symmetrical on the right and left sides of the host vehicle 16.”
Claim 7.
The combination of Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Reed et al. further teaches:
determining whether an object is present within the area of interest
(Reed – [0003]) “activating the cross traffic alert when the vehicle is backing out of the parking space if an object is detected in the first side portion of interest”
Claim 8.
The combination of Reed et al. and Kossmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Reed et al. further teaches:
generating, based on the object being present within the area of interest, a warning message
(Reed – [0003]) “activating the cross traffic alert when the vehicle is backing out of the parking space if an object is detected in the first side portion of interest”
Claim 10.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Laubinger et al. (US 20100117812).
Claim 9.
Reed et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Reed et al. does not teach an area of interest for a parking space which is neither perpendicular or diagonal; however, Laubinger et al. teaches:
determining, based on the type of the parking space not being a parking space for perpendicular parking or a parking space for diagonal parking, the area of interest using the default value
(Laubinger – [0053]) “the host vehicle 5 is performing a parallel parking maneuver. Therefore, for this schematic diagram, the viewing area of interest may include the area behind the host vehicle 5 extending rearward from the rear bumper for a distance, such as a few meters”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the cross-traffic alert system of Reed et al. such that it has an area of interest for a parallel parking situation as in the system of Laubinger et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow for a vehicle to safely exit a parallel parking spot, such as one on the side of a street.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Reed et al. teaches determining a vehicle coordinate system (Reed – [0014]) and adjusting an area of interest (Reed – [0021]), Reed et al. fails to teach determining a plurality of reference points or adjusting the area of interest based on said reference points. The closest available art is Zhao et al. (CN 109859260).
Zhao et al. teaches the use of an anchor point in identifying a target parking space (Zhao – [0010]) and corner points of a candidate parking space appearing in the field of view of an image acquisition device (Zhao – [0216]). However, Zhao et al. is directed towards detecting a parking space in the process of an automatic parking operation, whereas Reed et al. is directed towards assisting a driver in cross-traffic detection while backing out of a parking space. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Reed et al. and Zhao et al. to obtain the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669