DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 1/17/2025 and IDS filed 4/8/2025, 2/12/2026 and 2/24/2026.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 19 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/8/2025, 2/12/2026 and 2/24/2026 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 2024-025510 (JP), filed 2/22/2024.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 1/17/2025 have been approved.
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.
7. Claims 1 and 19 are 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.
The phrase “…based on at least one of the detection information and a motion of the occupant…” introduces ambiguity because its unclear whether detection information, occupant motion, or both are required to trigger the suspension. Thus, the ambiguity makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara (U.S. Pub 2021/0300342, published Sep. 30, 2021 & cited in the 1449 dated 4/8/2025).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 19, Hara discloses A parking assistance device configured to automatically park a vehicle at a predetermined parking position, the parking assistance device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
store a parking route to the parking position (see paragraphs 62-66, discloses that the action plan unit 43 calculates a trajectory to the target parking position and the vehicle is moved along the calculated trajectory. The calculated trajectory constitutes the stored parking route);
perform detection at least around the vehicle to obtain detection information (see paragraphs 5 and 70-71, discloses an external environment recognizing unit 41 configure to detect obstacles present around the vehicle, with cancellation, suspension, and warning areas defined around the vehicle for obstacle detection);
control traveling in automatic parking (see paragraphs 5, 65 and 71, discloses a travel control unit within the control device that moves the vehicle along the calculated trajectory and control the powertrain, brake device, and steering device during the automatic parking process);
make a notification to an occupant of the vehicle (see paragraphs 5, 67 and 74, discloses an input/output device via HMI including touch panel and sound generating device configured to notify the driver of information including obstacle warnings, suspension inquiries and parking completion notifications); and
suspend, based on at least one of the detection information and a motion of the occupant, the traveling in the automatic parking, wherein the processor is configured to: suspend the traveling in the automatic parking in at least one of a case in which the processor detects an obstacle interfering during the automatic parking and a case in which the occupant stops the vehicle (see paragraphs 5, 76 and 82, discloses suspending the automatic parking process based on detection information via obstacle detected in suspension area and based on occupant motion via driver brake pedal operation amount falling below the second threshold, thus teaching both triggers), and
make a notification as to suspension of the traveling of the automatic parking, to the occupant (see paragraphs 11, 77 and 84, discloses that upon suspension of the automatic parking process, the touch panel displays an inquiry to the driver asking whether to resume the automatic parking process which constitutes notification of suspension to the occupant).
Regarding Dependent claims 2 and 20, Hara discloses wherein the processor is configured to, when detecting the interfering obstacle, suspend the traveling of the automatic parking at a predetermined position, and the predetermined position is a position corresponding to at least one of: a position at which a long side of the vehicle is substantially parallel to a direction of a road or a passage; a position enabling the processor to detect the parking position; and a position enabling the occupant to visually recognize the parking position (see paragraph 5, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 1, Hara discloses wherein the processor is configured to, when a direction of the vehicle is substantially parallel to a road and the occupant is capable of visually recognizing the parking position, perform at least one of making a notification of requesting confirmation of the parking position and decelerating the vehicle (see paragraphs 73-74, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Hara discloses wherein the processor is configured to, when the occupant stops the vehicle, suspending the traveling of the automatic parking, when detecting the interfering obstacle, or when the occupant performs a getting-off preparation action (see paragraphs 76-77 and 82, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, Hara discloses wherein the interfering obstacle is an obstacle present in an obstruction range, the obstruction range is a range corresponding to at least one of a parking obstruction range and a getting-off obstruction range, a closest distance to the vehicle body from the parking obstruction range being equal to or less than a margin threshold value during the automatic parking, a distance to a vehicle door from the getting-off obstruction range being equal to or less than a getting-off room threshold value when the occupant gets off the vehicle, and the processor is configured to determine, based on a positional relationship between a position of the detected obstacle and the obstruction range, whether the obstacle is the interfering obstacle (see paragraphs 15-16 & 70-74, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Hara discloses wherein the processor is configured to make at least one of: a notification indicating a range in which the obstacle interferes when being present when the automatic parking is performed or the occupant gets off the vehicle; a notification indicating the interfering obstacle, a notification indicating a position at which the interfering obstacle is to be cleared; a notification indicating a movement distance causing the interfering obstacle not to interfere; a notification reporting presence or absence of the interfering obstacle; a notification reporting a direction of the interfering obstacle; and a notification reporting that the obstacle no longer interferes (see paragraphs 74, including the explanation provided in the Independent 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.
9. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (U.S. Pub 2021/0300342, filed Mar. 29, 2021 & cited in the 1449 dated 4/8/2025) in view of Okamura (U.S. Pub 2014/0032031, filed Mar. 16, 2011).
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 5, Hara discloses detection of occupant seating in paragraph 58, however failing to teach any determination of clearance conditions around individual doors. Okamura discloses wherein the processor is further configured to detect seating of the occupant, and the processor is configured to set the getting-off obstruction range corresponding to a seat on which the occupant is seated, and not to set the getting-off obstruction range for a seat on which the occupant is not seated (see paragraphs 23-39). Both Hara and Okamura are in the same field of automated parking of vehicles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have monitored clearance conditions around individual doors. One motivation is to ensure easy entry and exit of a vehicle based on obstacle detection has outlined by Okamura in paragraph 39.
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 5, Hara discloses detection of occupant seating in paragraph 58, however failing to teach any determination of clearance conditions around individual doors. Okamura discloses wherein the processor is further configured to detect a location of a smart key, and the processor is configured to set the getting-off obstruction range corresponding to a driver's seat when the smart key is inside the vehicle, and not to set the getting-off obstruction range corresponding to the driver's seat when the smart key is outside the vehicle (see paragraphs 23-39). Both Hara and Okamura are in the same field of automated parking of vehicles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have monitored clearance conditions around individual doors. One motivation is to ensure easy entry and exit of a vehicle based on obstacle detection has outlined by Okamura in paragraph 39.
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 5, Hara discloses detection of occupant seating in paragraph 58, however failing to teach any determination of clearance conditions around individual doors. Okamura discloses wherein the processor is configured to set at least one of the margin threshold value and the getting-off room threshold value in accordance with at least one of whether a side mirror is open or closed, and an environmental condition, and the environmental condition includes at least one of an inclination of the vehicle body, a vibration of the vehicle body, a temperature outside the vehicle, and a wind speed outside the vehicle (see paragraphs 23-39). Both Hara and Okamura are in the same field of automated parking of vehicles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have monitored clearance conditions around individual doors. One motivation is to ensure easy entry and exit of a vehicle based on obstacle detection has outlined by Okamura in paragraph 39.
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to, when an obstacle is present in the getting-off obstruction range and no obstacle is present in the parking obstruction range, make at least one of: a notification regarding the occupant being obstructed from getting off the vehicle by the obstacle; a notification indicating that the traveling of the automatic parking is startable when the occupant gets off the vehicle; a notification suggesting the occupant to get off the vehicle; and a notification as to a means allowing the traveling of the automatic parking to be started from an outside of the vehicle (see paragraphs 23-39). Both Hara and Okamura are in the same field of automated parking of vehicles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have monitored clearance conditions around individual doors. One motivation is to ensure easy entry and exit of a vehicle based on obstacle detection has outlined by Okamura in paragraph 39.
10. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (U.S. Pub 2021/0300342, filed Mar. 29, 2021 & cited in the 1449 dated 4/8/2025) in view of Yasue (U.S. Pub 20200130580, filed Oct. 23, 2019).
Regarding Dependent claim 16, with dependency of claim 1, Hara fails to teach to teach any occupant face detection. Yasue discloses wherein the processor is configured to: detect a direction of a face of the occupant going outside the vehicle or a position of the occupant; and make a notification based on the position of the occupant, when the position of the occupant is changed from within a range where interference is caused when the obstacle is present, to outside the range, when a speed at which the position of the occupant moves away from the vehicle decreases, or when the face of the occupant is oriented toward the vehicle (see abstract & paragraphs 36 & 62-68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented detection of gaze direction of the occupant for obstacles and making notification has it improves the safety of vehicles by avoiding potential collisions.
Regarding Dependent claim 17, with dependency of claim 1, Hara fails to teach to teach any occupant face detection. Yasue discloses wherein the processor is configured to: detect at least one of a direction of a face of the occupant going outside the vehicle or a movement direction of the occupant; and change a mode of the notification between when the direction of the face or the movement direction is a direction away from the vehicle and when the direction of the face or the movement direction is a direction toward the vehicle, a mode of the notification made when the direction of the face or the movement direction is the direction away from the vehicle is a notification including at least one of a voice or a vibration of a terminal carried by the occupant, and a mode of the notification performed when the direction of the face or the movement direction is the direction toward the vehicle is a notification including control of a light of the vehicle (see abstract & paragraphs 36 & 62-68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented detection of gaze direction of the occupant for obstacles and making notification has it improves the safety of vehicles by avoiding potential collisions.
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 1, Hara fails to teach to teach any occupant face detection. Yasue discloses wherein the processor is configured to: detect at least one of a direction of a face of the occupant going outside the vehicle or a movement direction of the occupant; and change a content of the notification between when the direction of the face or the movement direction is a direction away from the vehicle and when the direction of the face or the movement direction is a direction toward the vehicle (see abstract & paragraphs 36 & 62-68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented detection of gaze direction of the occupant for obstacles and making notification has it improves the safety of vehicles by avoiding potential collisions.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
4/17/2026
Prosecution Insights