Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 07/16/2026. Claims 1-9 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-8 have been amended and new claim 9 has been added. Claims 1-9 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (Pub. No.: 2020/0398822 A1) in view of Arditi (Pub. No.: 2019/0197430 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Hara discloses the claimed control device for automatically parking a vehicle to a predetermined parking position (fig. 1: 2), the control device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral information of the vehicle (fig. 1: 7 and ¶0038);
a reception unit configured to receive designation of the parking position from a user of the vehicle (fig. 1: 1 and ¶0049); and
a control unit configured to perform movement control to automatically move the vehicle to the parking position based on the acquired peripheral information and the designated parking position (fig. 1: 15 and ¶0048-¶0049),
wherein the control unit temporarily stops the vehicle and sets the door of the vehicle to an unlocked state from the locked state in response to, and resumes moving the vehicle to the parking position in response to a predetermined operation being received from the user of the vehicle (¶0015 and ¶0102).
Hara does not explicitly disclose a notification control unit configured to provide predetermined notification to the user of the vehicle , a door lock device configured to lock and unlock a door of the vehicle, the door lock device locks the door during the movement control and keeps the door in a locked state even when the user performs an operation of opening the door during the movement control, the notification control unit provides a notification of an interruption operation which is different from the operation of opening the door, an interruption operation during the movement control, and the acquisition unit, the reception unit, the control unit, the notification control unit, and the door lock device are each implemented via at least one processor.
However, Arditi discloses it has been known for an autonomous vehicle control unit to include a notification control unit configured to provide predetermined notification to the user of the vehicle (¶0072 discloses the vehicle may provide a verbal warning), a door lock device configured to lock and unlock a door of the vehicle (¶0072 discloses once the vehicle pulls over the doors are unlocked), the door lock device locks the door during the movement control and keeps the door in a locked state even when the user performs an operation of opening the door during the movement control (¶0072 discloses the door is unlocked after the vehicle pulls over, hence, the vehicle door was locked as the car was moving), the notification control unit provides a notification of an interruption operation which is different from the operation of opening the door (¶0072 discloses in response to an emergency or request the vehicle can pull over), an interruption operation during the movement control (¶0072 discloses an emergency or request to pull over), and the acquisition unit, the reception unit, the control unit, the notification control unit, and the door lock device are each implemented via at least one processor (¶0072 discloses the management system performs the functions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Hara to pull over and unlock the door of the vehicle in response to a pullover request, as taught by Arditi.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Hara as described above in order to respond to emergencies or other actionable events/incidents occurring within the passenger compartment of a vehicle, as taught by Arditi (¶0072).
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Hara and Arditi further disclose the control device according to claim 1, wherein the interruption operation request is an operation of setting a shift position of the vehicle to parking (Hara ¶0090).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Hara and Arditi further disclose the control device according to claim 1, wherein when the vehicle is being moved to the parking position, the control unit sets the door to the locked state until there is the interruption operation (Hara ¶0103).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Hara and Arditi further disclose the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the notification control unit notifies that automatic parking for automatically parking the vehicle is interrupted when the vehicle is stopped in response to the interruption request from the user of the vehicle while the vehicle is being moved to the parking position (Hara ¶0076).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Hara and Arditi further disclose the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the notification control unit provides notification to prompt the predetermined operation when the vehicle is stopped in response to the interruption operation (Hara ¶0078).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Hara and Arditi further disclose the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the notification control unit notifies means for interrupting automatic parking for automatically parking the vehicle, when the user performs an operation of opening the door while the vehicle is being moved to the parking position (Hara ¶0102).
7) In regard to claim 7, claim 7 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
8) In regard to claim 8, claim 8 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
9) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Hara and Arditi further disclose the control device according to claim 1, wherein
the interruption operation is an operation to set the shift position to the parking (Arditi ¶0072), and
the operation of opening the door is an operation using a door handle of the door (it is inherent a door handle of a door can be used to open the door).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights