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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of 04/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 7-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of 04/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112(a) with respect to amended claims 9 and 18.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claim have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 3: The applicant argues that the claim recites similar features to claim 1; however, it does not recite the features which were indicated as allowable subject matter in the office action mailed 04/23/2026 and thus is rejected under 35 USC 103 for the reasons given below.
With respect to claims 10, 12, and 16-18: In amended method claim 10, the allowable subject matter is claimed as contingent on a parking space being a parking space for diagonal parking. However, the claim further recites that the type of parking space may be at least one of a parking space for perpendicular parking or a parking space for diagonal parking. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 10 does not require the performance of the allowable subject matter (see MPEP 2111.04).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite determining a type of parking space as being a parking space for parallel parking. While paragraphs [0057], [0075], and [0077] recite a parking area that is not perpendicular or diagonal, the specification does not explicitly support a determination that the parking space type is a parallel parking space.
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) 3, 10, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (US 20100271238, previously cited) in view of Kossmann et al. (EP 2887335, previously cited) in view of Wang (US 20210245735).
Claim 3.
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, wherein the type of 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.”
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.”
Reed et al. does not explicitly teach obtaining images of a parking area; however, Kossmann et al. teaches, with respect to Fig. 3 below:
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.”
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)
reducing the area of interest through removing a portion of the area of interest located beyond a predetermined longitudinal distance from the vehicle based on the type of parking space being a parking space for perpendicular parking
(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 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.
While Reed et al. teaches a collision alert, Reed et al. does not explicitly teach automatic braking based on an object being present. However, Wang teaches:
perform braking control of the vehicle based on an object being present within the adjusted area of interest
(Wang – [0071] “where the judgment of the potential collision object indicates the potential collision object is of a movable type and is located within the travelling lane based on the identified object features… a corresponding safety measure of the highest level is suggested, such as braking the vehicle to wait for the object to pass”
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 automatic braking of Wang. Both Reed et al. and Wang are directed towards preventing a vehicle collision in a parking situation; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent a collision in a situation in which a driver ignores or is unaware of a collision alert.
Claim 10.
As discussed with respect to claim 3 above, the combination of Reed et al., Kossmann et al., and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 10 which are not based on the type of parking space being a parking space for diagonal parking.
The limitations which are based on the type of parking space being a parking space for diagonal parking are contingent limitations, which are not required to be performed in a situation where the required conditions are not met. As the claimed method may be practiced without a determination of a diagonal parking space (e.g., in a situation in which a perpendicular parking space is determined), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require these steps.
Claim 12.
The combination of Reed et al., Kossmann et al., and Wang 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 16.
The combination of Reed et al., Kossmann et al., and Wang 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 17.
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(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reed et al., Kossmann et al., and Wang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Laubinger et al. (US 20100117812).
Claim 18.
The combination of Reed et al., Kossmann et al., and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11, 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 being a parking space for parallel 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are allowed.
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.
Claim would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 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:
The claim is dependent on allowed claim 1, and would thus be allowable for at least the same reasons if the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) were to be overcome.
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 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
Prosecution Insights