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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 – 9 should read “wherein the control unit is configured to execute update processing of updating, when the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by a second manual parking operation after the registered route is stored, the registered route based on information on the manual parking operation.” to provide clarity to the claim. Specifically, the “manual parking operation” recited in lines 7–8, which occurs after the registered route is stored, should be distinguished from the “manual parking operation” recited in line 3.
Claim 2, line 3 – 5 should read “store, when the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by [[a]]the second manual parking operation after the registered route is stored, as a post-registration manual parking route, a route along which the own vehicle has traveled until the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by the second manual parking operation;” for the same reason as in claim 1 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
As per claim 1,
Line 1 – 2, “a control unit configured to store, as a registered route, a route along which an own vehicle has traveled …”
Line 6 – 7, “wherein the control unit is configured to execute update processing of updating …”
Claim 2, line 1 – 3, “wherein the control unit is configured to: store, …”
Claim 3, line 1 – 3, “wherein the control unit is configured to: store the post-registration manual parking route …”
Claim 4, line 2 – 3, “the control unit is configured to average the registered route …”
Claim 5, “wherein the control unit is configured to execute exclusion processing of deleting abnormal data …”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “control unit” is described as a microcomputer. (Specification of publication, par. [0032], “ The parking assist ECU 10 is a control unit which includes, as a principal component, a microcomputer including a CPU 11, a ROM 12, a RAM 13, and an interface 14.”)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Yo-hong (English Translation of CN116279437A; hereinafter Feng) in view of Murai et al. (Publication No. 20240140402 A1).
Regarding to claim 1, Feng teaches A parking assist apparatus, comprising a control unit configured to store, as a registered route, a route along which an own vehicle has traveled until the own vehicle is parked at a predetermined parking position by a manual parking operation, ([Par. 0070], “the driver can activate the "parking route learning" function of the target vehicle at the starting point of the parking route, and then park the target vehicle in the target parking space. Accordingly, the target vehicle can learn the driver's parking route on its own and remember it. After the driver's parking route is learned, the target vehicle can generate a memory parking route based on the memorized driver parking route,” and to execute automatic parking control of parking the own vehicle at the predetermined parking position by causing the own vehicle to travel along the registered route, ([Par. 0070], “automatically park the target vehicle into the target parking space or automatically park the target vehicle out of the target parking space according to the memorized parking route.”)
Feng teaches to learn manual parking operation and execute automatic parking as described above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to execute update processing of updating, when the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by a manual parking operation after the registered route is stored, the registered route based on information on the manual parking operation.
However, Murai teaches wherein the control unit is configured to execute update processing of updating, when the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by a manual parking operation after the registered route is stored, the registered route based on information on the manual parking operation. ([Par. 0072], “In addition, safety region setter 140 may store the safety region of the first manual parking (the region of the broken line) in storage 120, and perform a process of adding the region overlapping the vehicle body (the region of the solid line) to the safety region with time when the second manual parking is performed. In addition, the multiple manual parking of two or more times may not necessarily continuously performed, and the manual parking may be restarted (continued) on another day. In addition, safety region setter 140 may further add the range where the vehicle has passed at the time of exiting to the safety region. For example, the occupant may select a cancel of learning permission for permitting learning (addition of the safety region) such that learning is performed for each manual parking when there is a learning permission.”; [Par. 0103], “After the parking path is calculated, storage 120 stores the learning point, the safety region, the parking path and the learning permission. In addition, in the case where the learning permission is stored, the safety region based on the second and subsequent manual driving can be added to the safety region up to that point by automatically continuing the manual parking (step S105, NO) when returning to the learning point and proceeding to the determination at step S105.”)
It would have been obvious to modify Feng to incorporate the teaching of Murai so that the learned parking route can be updated based on subsequent manual parking operations. Murai teaches that parking-related information learned during manual parking may be updated using later manual parking operations (see, e.g., Murai Par. [0099], [0072]). Incorporating this teaching into Feng would allow the stored parking route to be refined using additional manual parking data, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of the learned parking route used for automatic parking.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Feng and Murai teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Murai further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to: store, when the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by a manual parking operation after the registered route is stored, as a post-registration manual parking route, a route along which the own vehicle has traveled until the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by the manual parking operation; ([Par. 0072], “In addition, safety region setter 140 may store the safety region of the first manual parking (the region of the broken line) in storage 120, and perform a process of adding the region overlapping the vehicle body (the region of the solid line) to the safety region with time when the second manual parking is performed. In addition, the multiple manual parking of two or more times may not necessarily continuously performed, and the manual parking may be restarted (continued) on another day. In addition, safety region setter 140 may further add the range where the vehicle has passed at the time of exiting to the safety region. For example, the occupant may select a cancel of learning permission for permitting learning (addition of the safety region) such that learning is performed for each manual parking when there is a learning permission.”; [Par. 0103], “After the parking path is calculated, storage 120 stores the learning point, the safety region, the parking path and the learning permission. In addition, in the case where the learning permission is stored, the safety region based on the second and subsequent manual driving can be added to the safety region up to that point by automatically continuing the manual parking (step S105, NO) when returning to the learning point and proceeding to the determination at step S105.” This is interpreted as the second and subsequent manual driving parking route can be used to update the calculated parking path.) and
update, in the update processing, the registered route through use of the post- registration manual parking route. ([Par. 0103], “After the parking path is calculated, storage 120 stores the learning point, the safety region, the parking path and the learning permission. In addition, in the case where the learning permission is stored, the safety region based on the second and subsequent manual driving can be added to the safety region up to that point by automatically continuing the manual parking (step S105, NO) when returning to the learning point and proceeding to the determination at step S105.”)
Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Feng and Murai teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Murai further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to:
store the post-registration manual parking route each time the own vehicle is parked at the predetermined parking position by a manual parking operation after the registered route is stored, to thereby accumulate the post-registration manual parking route; ([Par. 0072], “In addition, safety region setter 140 may store the safety region of the first manual parking (the region of the broken line) in storage 120, and perform a process of adding the region overlapping the vehicle body (the region of the solid line) to the safety region with time when the second manual parking is performed. In addition, the multiple manual parking of two or more times may not necessarily continuously performed, and the manual parking may be restarted (continued) on another day. In addition, safety region setter 140 may further add the range where the vehicle has passed at the time of exiting to the safety region. For example, the occupant may select a cancel of learning permission for permitting learning (addition of the safety region) such that learning is performed for each manual parking when there is a learning permission.”; [Par. 0103], “After the parking path is calculated, storage 120 stores the learning point, the safety region, the parking path and the learning permission. In addition, in the case where the learning permission is stored, the safety region based on the second and subsequent manual driving can be added to the safety region up to that point by automatically continuing the manual parking (step S105, NO) when returning to the learning point and proceeding to the determination at step S105.” This is interpreted as the second and subsequent manual driving parking route can be used to update the calculated parking path.) and
update, in the update processing, the registered route through use of the accumulated post-registration manual parking routes. ([Par. 0103], “After the parking path is calculated, storage 120 stores the learning point, the safety region, the parking path and the learning permission. In addition, in the case where the learning permission is stored, the safety region based on the second and subsequent manual driving can be added to the safety region up to that point by automatically continuing the manual parking (step S105, NO) when returning to the learning point and proceeding to the determination at step S105.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668