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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 06 May 2026. Claims 1-18 and 20 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 9-10, 12, and 20 are currently amended and claim 19 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the claim objection as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendment raises new rejection addressed below under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-18 and 20 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.
In claims 1 and 12, the recited limitation “deriving a close match parking maneuver for the vehicle with the attachment present, wherein the close match parking maneuver corresponds to at least one of the plurality of existing parking maneuvers when no attachment is present” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner why is the derived close match is being for parking maneuvers with the attachment is present and further emphasizes that the close match parking maneuvers corresponds to existing parking maneuvers when no attachment is present? Is there two different parking maneuver that are being derived or are they being combined?
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 and 20 are being rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 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, 4-5, 10-16, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niebling Frank (DE102016003847A1) in view of Elwart (US 20160068158 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of DE102016003847A1 for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Niebling discloses a system for parking a vehicle with an attachment (see at least [0001]), the system comprising: a plurality of vehicle sensors configured to sense data related to a vehicle steering system that includes a motor and a steering rack (see at least [0015] and [0020-0021]); a memory configured to store parking maneuver information including a plurality of existing parking maneuvers for the vehicle when no attachment is present (see at least [0021], “The driver of the vehicle 1 can decide whether he himself parks the vehicle 1 by means of a displayed navigation, comprising recommended steering angles and steering directions for optimum parking of the vehicle 1 in the free parking area P, or whether the vehicle 1 is parked in semi-autonomous or autonomous operation. For example, the driver can select between different assistance programs and assistance processes by means of the input unit 4 of the parking assistance device 3 arranged and/or embodied in the vehicle 1.”. Niebling implicitly teaches stored parking maneuvers which include parking maneuvers for parking the vehicle 2 autonomously in which the recommended steering angles/steering directions (existing parking maneuvers) are implicitly being controlled autonomously be vehicle 2 .); and an electronic processor communicatively connected to the plurality of vehicle sensors and configured to: determine a size of the vehicle (see at least [0006] and [0015-0021], “…data of dimensions of the vehicle and of the trailer are stored…”); determine a size of the attachment (see at least [0006] and [0015-0021], “…data of dimensions of the trailer 2 are stored in the parking assistance device 3….”); determine a parking slot dimension (see at least [0006] and [0015-0021], “…dimensions of the free parking area are automatically detected before the vehicle is parked with the trailer on a free parking area…”); deriving a close match parking maneuver for the vehicle with the attachment present (see at least [0006] and [0015-0021], “…dimensions of the free parking area are automatically detected before the vehicle is parked with the trailer on a free parking area…”. “The driver of the vehicle 1 can decide whether he himself parks the vehicle 1 by means of a displayed navigation, comprising recommended steering angles and steering directions for optimum parking of the vehicle 1 in the free parking area P, or whether the vehicle 1 is parked in semi-autonomous or autonomous operation. For example, the driver can select between different assistance programs and assistance processes by means of the input unit 4 of the parking assistance device 3 arranged and/or embodied in the vehicle 1.”), generate a trajectory path from the close match parking maneuver along which the vehicle and attachment can travel to park in a parking slot (see at least [0006-0007], [0015-0021], and [Fig. 1], “…parking process E…”); generate an automatic parking maneuver based on the trajectory path (see at least [0006-0007], [0015-0021], and [Fig. 1], “…completely assuming a parking process E during autonomous operation of the vehicle 1…”); and control the vehicle to park the vehicle with the attachment (see at least [0006-0007], [0015-0021], and [Fig. 1]).
However, Niebling do not specifically disclose wherein the close match parking maneuver corresponds to at least one of the plurality of existing parking maneuvers when no attachment is present.
Elwart teaches wherein the close match parking maneuver corresponds to at least one of the plurality of existing parking maneuvers when no attachment is present (see at least [0029], [0039], [0057], and [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Elwart wherein the close match parking maneuver corresponds to at least one of the plurality of existing parking maneuvers when no attachment is present. This would be done to improve replicating parking maneuvers so that a vehicle is successfully parked (see Elwart para 0005-0008).
With respect to claim 2, Niebling discloses wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors includes a camera and the system further comprises an image detection system including the camera for capturing images of an area surrounding the vehicle (see at least [0018-0019]).
With respect to claim 4, Niebling discloses an attachment image database (see at least [0018-0019], “…stored data of the dimensions of the vehicle 1 and of the trailer 2…”), wherein an image look-up algorithm is configured to compare the images captured by the camera to database images from the attachment image database (see at least [0018-0020], “For automatic detection of the dimensions of the trailer 2, the parking assistance device 3 comprises a detection unit 3.2 arranged and/or formed in the vehicle 1. The detection unit 3.2 is designed, for example, as a radar, sensor and/or camera unit. For this purpose, the vehicle 1 can move past the stationary trailer 2 in order to record the dimensions of the trailer 2. Alternatively, or additionally, the vehicle 1 can record the dimensions of the trailer 2 standing in an immediate vehicle environment of the vehicle 1 in the parked state.”. “…when passing the parking area P or when driving with the vehicle 1 towards the parking area P, are automatically detected by means of the detection unit 3.2. The recorded data of the parking area P are compared with the stored data of the dimensions of the vehicle 1 and of the trailer 2…”) and, in an event a matching image is found in the database images, output a set of features associated with the matching image (see at least [0018-0020].
With respect to claim 5, Niebling discloses wherein the image look-up algorithm outputs a first size of the attachment according to the set of features associated with the matching image (see at least [0018-0020], “For automatic detection of the dimensions of the trailer 2, the parking assistance device 3 comprises a detection unit 3.2 arranged and/or formed in the vehicle 1. The detection unit 3.2 is designed, for example, as a radar, sensor and/or camera unit. For this purpose, the vehicle 1 can move past the stationary trailer 2 to record the dimensions of the trailer 2. “The recorded data of the parking area P are compared with the stored data of the dimensions of the vehicle 1 and of the trailer 2…”).
With respect to claim 10, Niebling discloses wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors includes a long-range radar (see at least [0019-0020]), and the electronic processor is configured to execute a radar algorithm for processing data captured by the long-range radar (see at least [0019-0020]).
With respect to claim 11, Niebling discloses a user interface (see at least [0021]), wherein the electronic processor is configured to provide the automatic parking maneuver as an option to a user via the user interface (see at least [0021], “The driver of the vehicle 1 can decide whether he himself parks the vehicle 1 by means of a displayed navigation, comprising recommended steering angles and steering directions for optimum parking of the vehicle 1 in the free parking area P, or whether the vehicle 1 is parked in semi-autonomous or autonomous operation. For example, the driver can select between different assistance programs and assistance processes by means of the input unit 4 of the parking assistance device 3 arranged and/or embodied in the vehicle 1.”), and wherein the electronic processor is configured to control the vehicle steering system when the option is selected (see at least [0021], “The driver of the vehicle 1 can decide whether he himself parks the vehicle 1 by means of a displayed navigation, comprising recommended steering angles and steering directions for optimum parking of the vehicle 1 in the free parking area P, or whether the vehicle 1 is parked in semi-autonomous or autonomous operation. For example, the driver can select between different assistance programs and assistance processes by means of the input unit 4 of the parking assistance device 3 arranged and/or embodied in the vehicle 1.”).
With respect to claims 12, 13, 14, and 15, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. As such, claims 12, 13, 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 16, Niebling discloses wherein determining the size of the attachment comprises implementing the image look-up algorithm and a radar algorithm (see at least [0018], “the detection unit 3.2 is designed, for example, as a radar, sensor and/or camera unit.”.).
With respect to claim 20, Niebling discloses providing the automatic parking maneuver based on the close match parking maneuver as an option to a user via a user interface (see at least [0021], “The driver of the vehicle 1 can decide whether he himself parks the vehicle 1 by means of a displayed navigation, comprising recommended steering angles and steering directions for optimum parking of the vehicle 1 in the free parking area P, or whether the vehicle 1 is parked in semi-autonomous or autonomous operation. For example, the driver can select between different assistance programs and assistance processes by means of the input unit 4 of the parking assistance device 3 arranged and/or embodied in the vehicle 1.”), wherein the electronic processor is configured to control a vehicle steering system when the option is selected (see at least [0021], “The driver of the vehicle 1 can decide whether he himself parks the vehicle 1 by means of a displayed navigation, comprising recommended steering angles and steering directions for optimum parking of the vehicle 1 in the free parking area P, or whether the vehicle 1 is parked in semi-autonomous or autonomous operation. For example, the driver can select between different assistance programs and assistance processes by means of the input unit 4 of the parking assistance device 3 arranged and/or embodied in the vehicle 1.”),
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niebling Frank (DE102016003847A1) in view of Elwart (US 20160068158 A1) in view of Itoh (US 20220303505 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Niebling as modified by Elwart do not specifically disclose wherein the camera is multiple cameras including a top view camera, a rear-view camera, a side view camera, and a front view camera.
Itoh teaches wherein the camera is multiple cameras including a top view camera (see at least [0015], [0019], and [Fig. 7]), a rear-view camera (see at least [0015], [0019], and [Fig. 7]), a side view camera (see at least [0015], [0019], and [Fig. 7]), and a front view camera (see at least [0015], [0019], and [Fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Itoh wherein the camera is multiple cameras including a top view camera, a rear-view camera, a side view camera, and a front view camera. This would be done to assist the driver in maneuvering the vehicle when performing driving operation with a trailer (see Itoh para 0002).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niebling Frank (DE102016003847A1) in view of Elwart (US 20160068158 A1) in view of Shahmurad et al (US 20250074415 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of DE102016003847A1 for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 6, Niebling as modified by Elwart do not specifically disclose wherein the attachment image database comprises a look-up table including the database images of a plurality of attachments and the set of features corresponding to each of the plurality of attachments.
Shahmurad teaches wherein the attachment image database comprises a look-up table including the database images of a plurality of attachments and the set of features corresponding to each of the plurality of attachments (see at least [0003], [0044], [0050], and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Shahmurad wherein the attachment image database comprises a look-up table including the database images of a plurality of attachments and the set of features corresponding to each of the plurality of attachments. This would be done to improve operating/traveling of the vehicle by considering the trailer information (see Shahmurad para 0004).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niebling Frank (DE102016003847A1) in view of Elwart (US 20160068158 A1)in view of Shahmurad et al (US 20250074415 A1) in view of Mepham et al (US 200210232142 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of DE102016003847A1 for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 7, Niebling as modified by Elwart and Shahmurad do not specifically teach wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors includes a long-range radar, and the electronic processor is configured to execute a radar algorithm for processing data captured by the long-range radar, wherein the radar algorithm is configured to output a second size of the attachment.
Mepham teaches wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors includes a long-range radar (see at least [0034-0039]), and the electronic processor is configured to execute a radar algorithm for processing data captured by the long-range radar (see at least [0034-0039], [0044-0045], and [0059-0062]), wherein the radar algorithm is configured to output a second size of the attachment (see at least [0034-0039], [0044-0045], and [0059-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart and Shahmurad, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mepham wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors includes a long-range radar, and the electronic processor is configured to execute a radar algorithm for processing data captured by the long-range radar, wherein the radar algorithm is configured to output a second size of the attachment. This would be done to provide improved trailer measurement detection when a vehicle will be coupled to a vehicle (see Mepham para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 8, Niebling as modified by Elwart and Shahmurad do not specifically teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to execute an attachment-size algorithm comparing the first size of the attachment to the second size of the attachment to determine a likely size of the attachment.
Mepham teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to execute an attachment-size algorithm comparing the first size of the attachment to the second size of the attachment to determine a likely size of the attachment (see at least [0034], [0038-0041], and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart and Shahmurad, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mepham wherein the electronic processor is configured to execute an attachment-size algorithm comparing the first size of the attachment to the second size of the attachment to determine a likely size of the attachment. This would be done to provide improved trailer measurement detection when a vehicle will be coupled to a vehicle (see Mepham para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 9, Niebling as modified by Elwart and Shahmurad do not specifically teach wherein the data captured is sensor point cloud data, and executing the radar algorithm comprises Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Application with Noise (DBSCAN) clustering using the sensor point cloud data.
Mepham teaches wherein the data captured is sensor point cloud data, and executing the radar algorithm comprises Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Application with Noise (DBSCAN) clustering using the sensor point cloud data (see at least [0038-0039], [0045], and [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart and Shahmurad, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mepham wherein the data captured is sensor point cloud data, and executing the radar algorithm comprises Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Application with Noise (DBSCAN) clustering using the sensor point cloud data. This would be done to provide improved trailer measurement detection when a vehicle will be coupled to a vehicle (see Mepham para 0002-0003).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niebling Frank (DE102016003847A1) in view of Elwart (US 20160068158 A1) in view of Mepham et al (US 200210232142 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of DE102016003847A1 for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 17, Niebling as modified by Elwart do not specifically disclose capturing data associated with the area surrounding the vehicle with a long-range radar, wherein the radar algorithm is configured to output a second size of the attachment.
Mepham teaches capturing data associated with the area surrounding the vehicle with a long-range radar, wherein the radar algorithm is configured to output a second size of the attachment (see at least [0034-0039], [0044-0045], and [0059-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mepham capturing data associated with the area surrounding the vehicle with a long-range radar, wherein the radar algorithm is configured to output a second size of the attachment. This would be done to provide improved trailer measurement detection when a vehicle will be coupled to a vehicle (see Mepham para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 18, Niebling as modified by Elwart do not specifically disclose implementing, with the electronic processor, an attachment-size algorithm comparing the first size of the attachment to the second size of the attachment to determine a likely size of the attachment.
Mepham teaches implementing, with the electronic processor, an attachment-size algorithm comparing the first size of the attachment to the second size of the attachment to determine a likely size of the attachment (see at least [0034], [0038-0041], and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Niebling as modified by Elwart, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mepham implementing, with the electronic processor, an attachment-size algorithm comparing the first size of the attachment to the second size of the attachment to determine a likely size of the attachment. This would be done to provide improved trailer measurement detection when a vehicle will be coupled to a vehicle (see Mepham para 0002-0003).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights