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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to Application 19/018,105 filed on 04/24/2026. Claims 1, 4 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. DE102024200244.5, filed on 01/11/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 04/24/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Derendarz et al., US 20180281859 A1 in view of Wittkampf et al., US 20210276483 A1.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection by adding the steps of “defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation; and traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation.” Applicant contends that these limitations integrate any judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 and amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong 1, Clam 1 remains directed to the abstract idea of evaluating a confidence measure associated with a trajectory and mapping that measure to a degree of automation. The newly recited “defining” step is itself a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Merely labeling the mapping as “defining” does not change its abstract character. Under Step 2A Prong2, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of “traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation,” constitutes insignificant post-solution activity and a mere field of use limitation. It simply applies the result of the abstract idea (the confidence to automation mapping) in a vehicle environment without improving the functioning of the vehicle, without reciting any particular technical implementation of how the degree of automation is realized in a control system, and without transforming the trajectory or confidence data into a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h). Such language is analogous to the “apply it” limitations found insufficient in Allice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and subsequent Federal Circuit decisions. Under Step 2B, the same additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to an inventive concept. They are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of vehicle navigation and autonomous driving and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Examiner notes independent claim 10 is rejected under same rationale and claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III).
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A method for providing trajectories for at least one vehicle, the method comprising:
providing at least one trajectory that is generated by a vehicle or by another source selected from the group consisting of a simulation, an infrastructure operator, and another vehicle [Insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process];
assigning a confidence measure to the at least one trajectory [mental step/process];
receiving the at least one trajectory by at least one vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]; and
defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation [mental step/process];
traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation [insignificant post-solution activity/mere field of use limitation (applying the result of the abstract idea in a vehicle environment]
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation/steps of assigning a confidence measure to the at least one trajectory and using the at least one trajectory in consideration of the assigned confidence measure and defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the “at least one vehicle” in base claim 1. That is, other than reciting “at least one vehicle” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for at least one vehicle language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a central server and at least one vehicle. In particular, a central server and at least one vehicle are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the central server and at least one vehicle were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification does not provide any indication that “central server” is anything other than a conventional computer system (See at least ¶42 of applicant’s specification).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “central server” elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent system claim 10, respectively, recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
Thus, claims 1-6 and 8-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derendarz et al., US 20180281859 A1 in view of Wittkampf et al., US 20210276483 A1, hereinafter referred to as Derendarz and Wittkampf, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Derendarz discloses a method for providing trajectories for at least one vehicle (The core idea of the disclosed embodiments is to provide a central management for learnt trajectories of an assistance system for the automated driving of a transportation vehicle into a parking position – See at least ¶17), the method comprising:
providing at least one trajectory that is generated by a vehicle (In a first embodiment, a method is provided for the automated driving of a transportation vehicle, in particular of a motor vehicle, to approach a parking position, comprising the following operations: providing a trajectory for a controller of the transportation vehicle, generating signals to control a movement of the transportation vehicle along the provided trajectory – See at least ¶18) or by another source selected from the group consisting of a simulation, an infrastructure operator, and another vehicle;
receiving the at least one trajectory by at least one vehicle (Retrieving and receiving at least one trajectory stored on the server via the communication connection, wherein the retrieved and received trajectory passes at least through a tolerance range around the determined current position of the transportation vehicle – See at least ¶18); and
traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory (A user can then select one of the trajectories or one of the branches of the trajectory tree and therefore a desired parking position via a corresponding user interaction on the display and operating device – See at least ¶48. Once the selection has been made, the automated drive along the selected and provided trajectory is carried out, whereby the controller provides corresponding signals to control a longitudinal adjustment and a transverse adjustment of the motor vehicle – See at least ¶49).
Derendarz fails to disclose assigning a confidence measure to the at least one trajectory; and defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation; traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation.
However, Wittkampf teaches:
assigning a confidence measure to the at least one trajectory (A confidence value is set for the determined driving lane course based on the degree of matching between driving lane courses – See at least ¶17 and 25); and
defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation (The confidence value is compared with a predetermined threshold to determine whether autonomous driving along the planned trajectory is possible; when the confidence value exceeds the threshold, the driving lane course is provided to the automated driving function, whereas a confidence value below the threshold results in a warning or driver takeover request – See at least ¶17, 19 and 21);
traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation (The degree of matching can, for example, be a percentage of matching of the driving lane courses. Based on this percentage of matching, a confidence value can be set for the determined driving lane course – See at least ¶17. The determined driving lane course is provided to a driving function when a confidence value above a predetermined confidence threshold value is present. In this way, it is ensured that only those driving lane courses are provided which allow an error-free driving function – See at least ¶19. Issuing a warning or driver takeover request when the confidence value is below the threshold – See at least ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Derendarz and include the feature of assigning a confidence measure to the at least one trajectory; and defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation; traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation, as taught by Wittkampf, for increasing the safety of driving functions of an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Derendarz, as modified, discloses wherein the step of providing the at least one trajectory comprises providing the at least one trajectory by a central server (Carrying out the method described in the first embodiment by at least one transportation vehicle and carrying out the following operations in a server: transmitting the found and provided at least one stored trajectory via the communication connection to the at least one transportation vehicle – See at least ¶20).
Regarding claim 5, Derendarz fails to disclose which comprises, upon receiving the at least one trajectory, one of checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure by the at least one vehicle.
However, Wittkampf teaches which comprises, upon receiving the at least one trajectory, one of checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure by the at least one vehicle (retrieving a further driving lane course from a data source; checking the plausibility of the determined driving lane course by verifying a matching of the driving lane courses; identifying a degree of matching; setting a confidence value based on the degree of matching – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Derendarz and include the feature of which comprises, upon receiving the at least one trajectory, one of checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure by the at least one vehicle, as taught by Wittkampf, for increasing the safety of driving functions of an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Derendarz, as modified, discloses which comprises generating and providing feedback by the at least one vehicle about a use of the at least one trajectory during and/or after traveling along the at least one trajectory (The found trajectories may be restricted, where appropriate, by an additionally transmitted selection criterion. It is thus possible, for example, for only stored trajectories to which specified individualization information is allocated to be provided. In this way, it is possible for trajectories which are provided exclusively for a driver, a passenger or a transportation vehicle to be allocated thereto – See at least ¶44).
Regarding claim 10, Derendarz discloses a system for providing trajectories, the system comprising:
at least one device for providing at least one trajectory generated by a vehicle (In a first embodiment, a method is provided for the automated driving of a transportation vehicle, in particular of a motor vehicle, to approach a parking position, comprising the following operations: providing a trajectory for a controller of the transportation vehicle, generating signals to control a movement of the transportation vehicle along the provided trajectory – See at least ¶18) or by another source selected from the group consisting of a simulation, an infrastructure operator, and another vehicle;
at least one vehicle configured for receiving the at least one trajectory (Retrieving and receiving at least one trajectory stored on the server via the communication connection, wherein the retrieved and received trajectory passes at least through a tolerance range around the determined current position of the transportation vehicle – See at least ¶18. The server searches for stored trajectories around the current position which pass through a tolerance range and transmits them back to the motor vehicle. The stored trajectories may have their starting point within the tolerance range. Some disclosed embodiments provide that the starting point of the trajectories must be located in the tolerance range. In any event, it must be possible to “transfer” the vehicle into the stored trajectories while driving exclusively in a drivable area, wherein a pose (position and orientation) of the motor vehicle and other constraints, for example, a minimum turning circle of the motor vehicle, etc., must be taken into account. Other trajectories, for example, can also be used for the definition and validation of the drivable area – See at least ¶50); and
travel the at least one trajectory (A user can then select one of the trajectories or one of the branches of the trajectory tree and therefore a desired parking position via a corresponding user interaction on the display and operating device – See at least ¶48. Once the selection has been made, the automated drive along the selected and provided trajectory is carried out, whereby the controller provides corresponding signals to control a longitudinal adjustment and a transverse adjustment of the motor vehicle – See at least ¶49).
Derendarz fails to disclose the at least one trajectory having a confidence measure assigned thereto or being configured for an assignment of a confidence measure; to define a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure; and to travel the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation.
However, Wittkampf teaches:
the at least one trajectory having a confidence measure assigned thereto or being configured for an assignment of a confidence measure (A confidence value is set for the determined driving lane course based on the degree of matching between driving lane courses – See at least ¶17 and 25); and
to define a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure (The confidence value is compared with a predetermined threshold to determine whether autonomous driving along the planned trajectory is possible; when the confidence value exceeds the threshold, the driving lane course is provided to the automated driving function, whereas a confidence value below the threshold results in a warning or driver takeover request – See at least ¶17, 19 and 21);
to travel the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation (The degree of matching can, for example, be a percentage of matching of the driving lane courses. Based on this percentage of matching, a confidence value can be set for the determined driving lane course – See at least ¶17. The determined driving lane course is provided to a driving function when a confidence value above a predetermined confidence threshold value is present. In this way, it is ensured that only those driving lane courses are provided which allow an error-free driving function – See at least ¶19. Issuing a warning or driver takeover request when the confidence value is below the threshold – See at least ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Derendarz and include the feature of assigning a confidence measure to the at least one trajectory; and defining a degree of automation of the at least one vehicle to travel along the at least one trajectory corresponding to the assigned confidence measure, wherein a greater value of the assigned confidence measure corresponds to a higher degree of automation; traveling, with the at least one vehicle, the at least one trajectory using the defined degree of automation, as taught by Wittkampf, for increasing the safety of driving functions of an autonomous vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derendarz et al., US 20180281859 A1 in view of Wittkampf et al., US 20210276483 A1, as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Beggel et al., US 20220011118A1, hereinafter referred to as Derendarz, Wittkampf and Beggel, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Derendarz and Wittkampf fail to disclose which comprises processing the confidence measure with the central server by at least one of checking the confidence measure, determining the confidence measure, or assigning the confidence measure to a respective trajectory.
However, Beggel teaches which comprises processing the confidence measure with the central server by at least one of checking the confidence measure, determining the confidence measure, or assigning the confidence measure to a respective trajectory (Capturing a trajectory and determining a map matching confidence based on the trajectory, wherein the confidence calculation may be performed in a backend component, such as a backend server or backend services – See at least ¶12, 49 and 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Derendarz and Wittkampf and include the feature of which comprises processing the confidence measure with the central server by at least one of checking the confidence measure, determining the confidence measure, or assigning the confidence measure to a respective trajectory, as taught by Beggel, to provide improved accuracy and reliability in calculating the confidence measure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derendarz et al., US 20180281859 A1 in view of Wittkampf et al., US 20210276483 A1, in view of Beggel et al., US 20220011118A1, as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Wheeler et al., US 20180188045A1, hereinafter referred to as Derendarz, Wittkampf, Beggel and Wheeler, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Derendarz, Wittkampf and Beggel fail to disclose which comprises again processing the confidence measure with the central server by the checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure after a predetermined amount of time since a last checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure.
However, Wheeler teaches which comprises again processing the confidence measure with the central server by the checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure after a predetermined amount of time since a last checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure (the online HD-map system receives verification record continuously over time, collects the records over a time interval that me be predetermined, and thereafter processes the records to update confidence values by increasing or decreasing the confidence values based on the received verification information – See at least ¶98-103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Derendarz, Wittkampf and Beggel and include the feature of which comprises again processing the confidence measure with the central server by the checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure after a predetermined amount of time since a last checking, determining, or assigning the confidence measure, as taught by Wheeler, to maintain an accurate and current confidence measure for the stored trajectory.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derendarz et al., US 20180281859 A1 in view of Wittkampf et al., US 20210276483 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Olson et al., US 20210048817A1, hereinafter referred to as Derendarz, Wittkampf and Olson, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Derendarz and Wittkampf fail to disclose which comprises determining the confidence measure in consideration of at least one of an age or a last use of the at least one trajectory.
However, Olson teaches which comprises determining the confidence measure in consideration of at least one of an age or a last use of the at least one trajectory (n some examples, the one or more validity checks may comprise a staleness check in which the system determines whether an age of the generated trajectory is less than or equal to a threshold age. In such examples, the trajectories may comprise a timestamp when they were generated. A staleness validity value is determined for the trajectory based on the temporal difference – See at least ¶25 and 140-141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Derendarz and Wittkampf and include the feature of which comprises determining the confidence measure in consideration of at least one of an age or a last use of the at least one trajectory, as taught by Olson, because the age or staleness of a trajectory indicates whether the trajectory remains sufficiently current and reliable for automated vehicle operation, thereby avoiding use of an outdated trajectory.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derendarz et al., US 20180281859 A1, in view of Wittkampf et al., US 20210276483 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Christian Schneider, DE102021003792A1, hereinafter referred to as Derendarz, Wittkampf and Schneider, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Derendarz and Wittkampf fail to disclose which comprises learning and providing the at least one trajectory again by the at least one vehicle when the confidence measure of the received at least one trajectory lies below a predetermined threshold value.
However, Schneider teaches which comprises learning and providing the at least one trajectory again by the at least one vehicle when the confidence measure of the received at least one trajectory lies below a predetermined threshold value (In the automated parking procedure for a vehicle using a trajectory previously learned at a learning time – See at least ¶7. In a branch V, it is checked whether the validity is greater than a given threshold. If this is not the case, represented by a no branch N, an alternative trajectory AT is determined in an eighth procedure step S8 if the specified threshold of validity is not exceeded – See at least ¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Derendarz and Wittkampf and include the feature of learning and providing the at least one trajectory again by the at least one vehicle when the confidence measure of the received at least one trajectory lies below a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Schneider, to verify the validity of the initially learned trajectory (See at least ¶21 of Schneider).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kadowaki et al., US 20110273310A1, discloses a parking assist apparatus capable of allowing an automatic steering control to be started smoothly, without requiring any special operation after confirmation of a parking target location. The parking assist apparatus includes a parking target position setting section for setting a parking target position, a guiding path calculating section for calculating a guiding path to the parking target position, a reporting information outputting section for reporting to the driver upon successful establishment of a guiding path that an automatic steering is now possible.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights