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 action is in reply to the Application Number 19/040,333 filed on 01/29/2025.
Claims 3, 9, and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 13-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 06/25/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0070282 A1) in view of Szczerba (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0234596 A1) in further view of Ronkainen (WO 2017176550 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim teaches:
A method comprising:, (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-54th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and automatically moving the vehicle, via instructions provided by the processor that are implemented via a drive system comprising a propulsion system via a motor thereof, to the updated stopping location;, (See (Kim: Background – 4th-7th paragraphs, Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs, and Detailed Description – 70th-76th and 84th-98th paragraphs, FIG. 5-7))
wherein the actions further comprise providing a notification to the user, via instructions provided by the processor, with recommended instructions as to the egress of the user from the vehicle, including based on the relative spatial location of the one or more objects., (See (Kim: Detailed Description – 55th-66th and 105th-107th paragraphs, FIG. 2, 9))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
obtaining vehicle destination information as to a vehicle destination to which a vehicle is travelling, including a stopping location where the vehicle is to stop at the end of a current vehicle drive;, (See (Szczerba: Summary – 2nd-11th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 29th-30th and 46th-50th paragraphs))
obtaining user destination information as to a final destination to which a passenger will be walking upon egress from the vehicle after the vehicle is stopped at the end of the current vehicle drive; determining, via the processor, a walking route for the user to follow to reach the user destination from the vehicle destination upon the egress of the user from the vehicle;, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 32nd-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba does not teach but Ronkainen teaches:
obtaining sensor data as to one or more objects in proximity to a vehicle, via one or more sensors of the vehicle, including any objects that maybe on the walking route or that may interfere with the user's travelling along the walking route; and performing actions for facilitating egress of a user from the vehicle, in accordance with instructions provided by a processor of the vehicle, based on the sensor data, including by determining, via the processor, an updated stopping location based on the walking route and the objects, such that the updated stopping location provides a shorter distance to the walking route, and also such that potholes and other objects are avoided by the user in accessing the walking route upon egress from the vehicle,, (See (Ronkainen: 30th-42nd, 85th-86th, 126th-130th, 146th-154th, and 162nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba with these above aforementioned teachings from Ronkainen in order to create an efficient system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Ronkainen’s method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions in order to obtain sensor data of objects that may interfere with a user's travelling along a walking route and determine an updated stopping location for the user that provides a shorter distance to the walking route and avoids potholes and other objects in accessing the walking route. Combining Kim and Ronkainen would thus provide an efficient “method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions”. (Ronkainen: Description)
Regarding Claim 2:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
[…] and wherein the instructions for the actions provided by the processer are based in part on the geographic location., (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 50th-66th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising: obtaining location data as to a geographic location as to a vehicle destination and current vehicle location;, (See (Szczerba: Summary – 2nd-3rd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 29th-30th, 35th, and 54th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise providing instructions via the processor for the user to follow for the egress from the vehicle and use of the walking route., (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 32nd-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Kim teaches:
A system comprising: a plurality of sensors of a vehicle, the plurality of sensors configured to obtain sensor data as to:, (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-54th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and automatically moving the vehicle, via instructions provided by the processor that are implemented via a drive system comprising a propulsion system via a motor thereof, to the updated stopping location;, (See (Kim: Background – 4th-7th paragraphs, Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs, and Detailed Description – 70th-76th and 84th-98th paragraphs, FIG. 5-7))
wherein the actions further comprise providing a notification to the user, via instructions provided by the processor, with recommended instructions as to the egress of the user from the vehicle, including based on the relative spatial location of the one or more objects., (See (Kim: Detailed Description – 55th-66th and 105th-107th paragraphs, FIG. 2, 9))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
vehicle destination information as to a vehicle destination to which a vehicle is travelling, including a stopping location where the vehicle is to stop at the end of a current vehicle drive user destination information as to a final destination to which a passenger will be walking upon egress from the vehicle after the vehicle is stopped at the end of the current vehicle drive;, (See (Szczerba: Summary – 2nd-11th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 29th-30th and 46th-50th paragraphs))
and one or more objects in proximity to the vehicle; and a processor of the vehicle that is coupled to the plurality of sensors and that is configured to at least facilitate: determining a walking route for the user to follow to reach the user destination from the vehicle destination upon the egress of the user from the vehicle;, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 32nd-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba does not teach but Ronkainen teaches:
performing actions for facilitating egress of a user from the vehicle, in accordance with instructions provided by a processor of the vehicle, based on the sensor data, including by determining, via the processor, an updated stopping location based on the walking route and the objects, such that the updated stopping location provides a shorter distance to the walking route, and also such that potholes and other objects are avoided by the user in accessing the walking route upon egress from the vehicle,, (See (Ronkainen: 30th-42nd, 85th-86th, 126th-130th, 146th-154th, and 162nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba with these above aforementioned teachings from Ronkainen in order to create an efficient system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Ronkainen’s method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions in order to obtain sensor data of objects that may interfere with a user's travelling along a walking route and determine an updated stopping location for the user that provides a shorter distance to the walking route and avoids potholes and other objects in accessing the walking route. Combining Kim and Ronkainen would thus provide an efficient “method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions”. (Ronkainen: Description)
Regarding Claim 11:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Kim further teaches:
[…] wherein the instructions for the actions provided by the processer are based in part on the geographic location., (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 50th-66th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The system of Claim 10, further comprising: a location system comprising a satellite-based navigation system, coupled to one or more satellites, that is configured to obtain location data as to a geographic location as to a vehicle destination and current vehicle location;, (See (Szczerba: Summary – 2nd-3rd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 29th-30th, 35th, and 54th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The system of Claim 10, further comprising: providing the actions further at least in part by providing of instructions for the user to follow for the egress from the vehicle and use of the walking route., (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 32nd-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 21:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not teach but Ronkainen teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising: updating, via the processor, the walking route based on changes of position of the user and of detected objects along the walking path as the user is walking along the walking path; and providing, via the processor, updated notifications to the user regarding the updated walking path., (See (Ronkainen: 35th, 129th-139th, 145th-154th, and 170th-179th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Ronkainen in order to create an efficient system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Ronkainen’s method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions in order to obtain sensor data of objects that may interfere with a user's travelling along a walking route and determine an updated stopping location for the user that provides a shorter distance to the walking route and avoids potholes and other objects in accessing the walking route. Combining Kim and Ronkainen would thus provide an efficient “method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions”. (Ronkainen: Description)
Regarding Claim 22:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21. Kim does not teach but Ronkainen teaches:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the walking route is updated by the processor when any of the following occurs: the user has walked off the walking path; the user has veered away from the walking path; one or more new obstacles are present; an existing obstacle has changed position; and an existing obstacle has changed direction., (See (Ronkainen: 35th, 129th-139th, 145th-154th, and 170th-179th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Ronkainen in order to create an efficient system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Ronkainen’s method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions in order to obtain sensor data of objects that may interfere with a user's travelling along a walking route and determine an updated stopping location for the user that provides a shorter distance to the walking route and avoids potholes and other objects in accessing the walking route. Combining Kim and Ronkainen would thus provide an efficient “method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions”. (Ronkainen: Description)
Regarding Claim 23:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the walking route is updated by the processor when each of the following occurs: the user has walked off the walking path; the user has veered away from the walking path;, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 44th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba does not teach but Ronkainen teaches:
[…] one or more new obstacles are present; an existing obstacle has changed position; and an existing obstacle has changed direction., (See (Ronkainen: 35th, 129th-139th, 145th-154th, and 170th-179th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba with these above aforementioned teachings from Ronkainen in order to create an efficient system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Ronkainen’s method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions in order to obtain sensor data of objects that may interfere with a user's travelling along a walking route and determine an updated stopping location for the user that provides a shorter distance to the walking route and avoids potholes and other objects in accessing the walking route. Combining Kim and Ronkainen would thus provide an efficient “method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions”. (Ronkainen: Description)
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0070282 A1) in view of Szczerba (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0234596 A1) in further view of Ronkainen (WO 2017176550 A1) in even further view of Mehta (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0132469 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The method of Claim 4, wherein the walking route is further determined based on information obtained from one or more remote devices via vehicle to infrastructure communications,, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 30th-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but Mehta teaches:
[…] as well as map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle., (See (Mehta: Detailed Description – 48th-50th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from Mehta in order to create an effective system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Mehta’s capacity-based vehicle operation system in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle based on information including orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle and map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Mehta would thus provide “an autonomous vehicle that is able to effectively adapt to its environment and the demands placed upon the autonomous vehicle by that environment.” (Mehta: Background – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but Mehta teaches:
The method of Claim 5, wherein the obtained information includes orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle., (See (Mehta: Detailed Description – 43rd and 46th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from Mehta in order to create an effective system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Mehta’s capacity-based vehicle operation system in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle based on information including orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle and map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Mehta would thus provide “an autonomous vehicle that is able to effectively adapt to its environment and the demands placed upon the autonomous vehicle by that environment.” (Mehta: Background – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The system of Claim 13, wherein the walking route is further determined based on information obtained from one or more remote devices via vehicle to infrastructure communications,, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 30th-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but Mehta teaches:
[…] as well as map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle., (See (Mehta: Detailed Description – 48th-50th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from Mehta in order to create an effective system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Mehta’s capacity-based vehicle operation system in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle based on information including orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle and map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Mehta would thus provide “an autonomous vehicle that is able to effectively adapt to its environment and the demands placed upon the autonomous vehicle by that environment.” (Mehta: Background – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 14. Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but Mehta teaches:
The method of Claim 14, wherein the obtained information includes orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle., (See (Mehta: Detailed Description – 43rd and 46th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from Mehta in order to create an effective system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Mehta’s capacity-based vehicle operation system in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle based on information including orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle and map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Mehta would thus provide “an autonomous vehicle that is able to effectively adapt to its environment and the demands placed upon the autonomous vehicle by that environment.” (Mehta: Background – 2nd paragraph)
Claims 7-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0070282 A1) in view of Szczerba (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0234596 A1) in further view of Ronkainen (WO 2017176550 A1) in even further view of DeCastro (US Pat No. 10,621,858).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Kim further teaches:
[…] wherein the actions further comprise providing a notification to the user, in accordance with instructions provided by the processor, as to the threat., (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 50th-66th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
[…] as the user exits from the vehicle and utilizes the walking route; […], (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 35th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
The method of Claim 4, further comprising: determining, via the processor using the sensor data, whether any of the objects are a threat to the user, (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Regarding Claim 8:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
[…] wherein the one or more objects are identified by the processor as a threat based on a relative position of the one or more objects with respect to both the user and the walking route; […], (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 35th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
The method of Claim 7, further comprising: localizing the one or more objects, via the processor using the sensor data; wherein the one or more objects are identified by the processor as a threat based on the localizing of the one or more objects;, (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
[…] and wherein the one or more objects are identified by the processor as a threat also based on whether the one or more objects are moving and, if moving, a direction of movement of the one or more objects with respect to both the user and the walking route., (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Regarding Claim 16:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Kim further teaches:
[…] and performing the one or more actions further at least in part by providing a notification to the user, in accordance with instructions provided by the processor, as to the threat., (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 50th-66th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
[…] as the user exits from the vehicle and utilizes the walking route; […], (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 35th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
The system of Claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to at least facilitate: determining, using the sensor data, whether any of the objects are a threat to the user, (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Regarding Claim 17:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
The system of Claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to at least facilitate: localizing the one or more objects, via the processor using the sensor data; and identifying the one or more objects as a threat based on the localizing of the one or more objects., (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Regarding Claim 18:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The system of Claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to at least facilitate: identifying the one or more objects as a threat based on a relative position of the one or more objects with respect to both the user and the walking route;, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 35th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
[…] and identifying the one or more objects as a threat also based on whether the one or more objects are moving and, if moving, a direction of movement of the one or more objects with respect to both the user and the walking route., (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Regarding Claim 19:
Kim teaches:
A vehicle comprising: a body; a drive system configured to move the body, the drive system comprising a propulsion system including a motor thereof;, (See (Kim: Background – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 84th-98th paragraphs, FIG. 5-7))
one or more sensors of the vehicle, the one or more sensors configured to obtain sensor data as to one or more objects in proximity to the vehicle; one or more additional sensors configured to obtain additional sensor data as to:, (See (Kim: Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 44th-54th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and automatically moving the vehicle, via instructions provided by the processor that are implemented via the propulsion system via the motor thereof, to the updated stopping location,, (See (Kim: Background – 4th-7th paragraphs, Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs, and Detailed Description – 70th-76th and 84th-98th paragraphs, FIG. 5-7))
wherein the actions further comprise providing a notification to the user, via instructions provided by the processor, with recommended instructions as to the egress of the user from the vehicle, including based on the geographic location of the vehicle destination and the one or more objects,, (See (Kim: Detailed Description – 55th-66th and 105th-107th paragraphs, FIG. 2, 9))
Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
a satellite-based location system comprising a navigation system, coupled to one or more satellites, that is configured to obtain location data as to a geographic location as to a vehicle destination at which the vehicle is stopped;, (See (Szczerba: Summary – 2nd-3rd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 29th-30th, 35th, and 54th paragraphs))
vehicle destination information as to a vehicle destination to which a vehicle is travelling, including a stopping location where the vehicle is to stop at the end of a current vehicle drive;, (See (Szczerba: Summary – 2nd-11th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 29th-30th and 46th-50th paragraphs))
and user destination information including an input of a user as to a user destination to which the user intends to travel upon egress from the vehicle after the vehicle is stopped at the end of the current vehicle drive; and a processor of the vehicle that is coupled to the satellite-based location system and to the one or more sensors and to the one or more additional sensors, the processor configured to at least facilitate: determining a walking route for the user to follow to reach the user destination from the vehicle destination upon the egress of the user from the vehicle;, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 32nd-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba does not teach but Ronkainen teaches:
and performing actions for facilitating the egress of the user from the vehicle, in accordance with instructions provided by the processor of the vehicle, based on the location data and the sensor data, including based on the geographic location of the vehicle destination and the one or more objects, including by determining, via the processor, an updated stopping location based on the walking route and the objects, such that the updated stopping location provides a shorter distance to the walking route, and also such that potholes and other objects are avoided by the user in accessing the walking route upon egress from the vehicle,, (See (Ronkainen: 30th-42nd, 85th-86th, 126th-130th, 146th-154th, and 162nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba with these above aforementioned teachings from Ronkainen in order to create an efficient system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Ronkainen’s method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions in order to obtain sensor data of objects that may interfere with a user's travelling along a walking route and determine an updated stopping location for the user that provides a shorter distance to the walking route and avoids potholes and other objects in accessing the walking route. Combining Kim and Ronkainen would thus provide an efficient “method and system for autonomous vehicle sensor assisted selection of route with respect to dynamic route conditions”. (Ronkainen: Description)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
determining, using the sensor data, whether any of the objects are a threat to the user as the user exits from the vehicle and utilizes the walking route;, (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
as well as providing to the user the notification as to which of the one or more objects are deemed to be a threat to the user., (See (DeCastro: Col. 10-11 – lines 34-6))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0070282 A1) in view of Szczerba (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0234596 A1) in further view of Ronkainen (WO 2017176550 A1) in even further view of DeCastro (US Pat No. 10,621,858) in even further view of Mehta (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0132469 A1).
Regarding Claim 20:
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen in even further view of DeCastro, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Kim does not teach but Szczerba teaches:
The vehicle of Claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to at least facilitate: determining the walking route further based on the additional sensor data that includes, (See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 32nd-41st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Szczerba in order to create a user-friendly system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Szczerba’s method and apparatus for haptically guiding a user in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle and provide instructions for the user to follow on the walking route. Combining Kim and Szczerba would thus provide “a wearable user-interface that is capable of communicating with an autonomous vehicle, which may be employed by vision-impaired or hearing-impaired users to access a ride-sharing vehicle service.” (Szczerba: Summary – 17th paragraph)
Kim in view of Szczerba does not teach but DeCastro teaches:
[…] localizing the one or more objects, via the processor using the sensor data; identifying the one or more objects as a threat based on the localizing of the one or more objects the location data and map data; and determining, using the sensor data, whether any of the objects are a threat to the user as the user exits from the vehicle and utilizes the walking route, based on the localizing of the one or more objects in addition to a relative position of the one or more objects with respect to both the user and the walking route, as well as based on whether the one or more objects are moving and, if moving, a direction of movement of the one or more objects with respect to both the user and the walking route., (See (DeCastro: Col. 1-3 – lines 66-9, Col. 4 – lines 4-30, Col. 7-9 – lines 58-8, Col. 10 – lines 14-33, and Col. 12-13 – lines 30-29))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba with these above aforementioned teachings from DeCastro in order to create a safe system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with DeCastro’s systems and methods for improving situational awareness of a user in order to localize and identify objects/obstacles as a threat to a user based on the user exiting from a vehicle and using a walking route and based on a direction of movement of the objects/obstacles with respect to both the user and the walking route. Combining Kim and DeCastro would thus provide “a system is disclosed that improves awareness of a pedestrian by automatically tracking dynamic objects in a surrounding environment and informing the pedestrian of threats.” (DeCastro: Col. 1-2 – lines 66-2)
Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen in even further view of DeCastro does not teach but Mehta teaches:
[…] orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle in addition to information obtained from one or more remote devices via vehicle to infrastructure communications, as well as map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle; […], (See (Mehta: Detailed Description – 43rd, 46th, and 48th-50th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Szczerba in further view of Ronkainen in even further view of DeCastro with these above aforementioned teachings from Mehta in order to create an effective system for improving user situational awareness during vehicle egress. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s automatic parking control apparatus and method with Mehta’s capacity-based vehicle operation system in order to determine a walking route for a user to follow to reach a destination upon egress from a vehicle based on information including orthoimagery of an environment surrounding the vehicle and map data that is stored in a computer memory of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Mehta would thus provide “an autonomous vehicle that is able to effectively adapt to its environment and the demands placed upon the autonomous vehicle by that environment.” (Mehta: Background – 2nd paragraph)
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on March 30th, 2026 has been withdrawn as the “Amendments” and “Remarks” filed by the Applicant on June 25th, 2026 satisfactorily overcome this rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 25th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the limitations are taught in the combination of Ronkainen, Kim, and Szczerba as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
Considering claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-18, and 19-20, See (Ronkainen: 30th-42nd, 85th-86th, 126th-130th, 146th-154th, and 162nd paragraphs) In doing so, Ronkainen addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “obtaining sensor data as to one or more objects in proximity to a vehicle, via one or more sensors of the vehicle, including any objects that maybe on the walking route or that may interfere with the user's travelling along the walking route; and performing actions for facilitating egress of a user from the vehicle, in accordance with instructions provided by a processor of the vehicle, based on the sensor data, including by determining, via the processor, an updated stopping location based on the walking route and the objects, such that the updated stopping location provides a shorter distance to the walking route, and also such that potholes and other objects are avoided by the user in accessing the walking route upon egress from the vehicle” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19. Furthermore, See (Kim: Background – 4th-7th paragraphs, Summary – 11th-26th paragraphs, and Detailed Description – 70th-76th and 84th-98th paragraphs, FIG. 5-7) In doing so, Kim addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “and automatically moving the vehicle, via instructions provided by the processor that are implemented via a drive system comprising a propulsion system via a motor thereof, to the updated stopping location” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
Considering claims 21-23, See (Ronkainen: 35th, 129th-139th, 145th-154th, and 170th-179th paragraphs) In doing so, Ronkainen addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “updating, via the processor, the walking route based on changes of position of the user and of detected objects along the walking path as the user is walking along the walking path; and providing, via the processor, updated notifications to the user regarding the updated walking path” as set forth in claim 21, “wherein the walking route is updated by the processor when any of the following occurs: the user has walked off the walking path; the user has veered away from the walking path; one or more new obstacles are present; an existing obstacle has changed position; and an existing obstacle has changed direction” as set forth in claim 22, and “one or more new obstacles are present; an existing obstacle has changed position; and an existing obstacle has changed direction” as set forth in claim 23. Furthermore, See (Szczerba: Detailed Description – 44th paragraph) In doing so, Szczerba addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “wherein the walking route is updated by the processor when each of the following occurs: the user has walked off the walking path; the user has veered away from the walking path” as set forth in claim 23.
As a result, the combination of Ronkainen, Kim, and Szczerba addresses the combination of determining, via the processor, an updated stopping location based on the walking route and the objects, such that the updated stopping location provides a shorter distance to the walking route, and also such that potholes and other objects are avoided by the user in accessing the walking route upon egress from the vehicle, and automatically moving the vehicle, via instructions provided by the processor that are implemented via a drive system comprising a propulsion system via a motor thereof, to the updated stopping location as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19, updating, via the processor, the walking route based on changes of position of the user and of detected objects along the walking path as the user is walking along the walking path; and providing, via the processor, updated notifications to the user regarding the updated walking path as set forth by the Applicant in claim 21, wherein the walking route is updated by the processor when any of the following occurs: the user has walked off the walking path; the user has veered away from the walking path; one or more new obstacles are present; an existing obstacle has changed position; and an existing obstacle has changed direction as set forth by the Applicant in claim 22, and wherein the walking route is updated by the processor when each of the following occurs: the user has walked off the walking path; the user has veered away from the walking path; one or more new obstacles are present; an existing obstacle has changed position; and an existing obstacle has changed direction as set forth by the Applicant in claim 23.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights