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 19/095,819 filed on 03/31/2025.
Claims 13 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 09/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 3-4, “the processor is further configured to change an other” should read “the processor is further configured to change another”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0242936 A1) in view of Weston (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0227782 A9).
Regarding Claim 1:
Matsunaga teaches:
A control device for a moving object which autonomously moves from a parking start position to a destined parking position, (See (Matsunaga: Summary of the Invention – 10th-15th paragraphs))
the control device comprising a processor configured to: acquire external environment information related to a surrounding situation of the moving object;, (See (Matsunaga: Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 62nd-72nd and 75th-80th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
store at a relevant time route information acquired when the moving object travels from the parking start position to the destined parking position in a storage; and perform travel control of the moving object travelling to the destined parking position based on the external environment information and the route information, wherein in a case where the moving object is not towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the external environment information and the route information stored in the storage, a non-towing travel route along which the moving object travels toward the destined parking position, and performs the travel control based on the non-towing travel route,, (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs, Summary of the Invention – 13th-19th and 23rd-33rd, and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th-136th, 139th-141st, and 174th-176th paragraphs))
Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
and to which a towed vehicle is connectable,, (See (Weston: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph))
acquire towed vehicle information related to the towed vehicle connected to the moving object;, (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 36th-37th, 44th-45th, 58th-59th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 1-3))
and in a case where the moving object is towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the external environment information, the route information stored in the storage, and the towed vehicle information, a towing travel route along which the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is connected, travels toward the destined parking position, and performs the travel control based on the towing travel route., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 51st-52nd, 61st-62nd, 74th-77th, and 94th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 3:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Matsunaga further teaches:
The control device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the route information, whether or not to travel along the towing travel route,, (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th and 139th-141st paragraphs))
Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
[…] and the processor is further configured to, in a case where it is determined that it is impossible to travel along the towing travel route, issue a notification for promoting a user to change the route information., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 38th-39th, 60th, 68th, 124th, 128th, and 134th 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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
The control device according to claim 3, wherein in a case where an operation of changing one of the non-towing travel route and the towing travel route is received from the user, the processor is further configured to change an other one of the non-towing travel route and the towing travel route based on the operation of changing., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 38th-39th, 51st-52nd, 60th-62nd, 68th, 76th-77th, 94th, 124th, 128th, and 134th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Matsunaga further teaches:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the route information, whether or not to travel along the towing travel route,, (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th and 139th-141st paragraphs))
Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
[…] and change, in a case where it is determined that it is impossible to travel along the towing travel route, the route information such that the moving object and the towed vehicle are able to travel from the parking start position to the destined parking position., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 38th-39th, 51st-52nd, 60th-62nd, 68th, 76th-77th, 94th, 124th, 128th, and 134th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to set, based on the route information, a travel speed of the moving object in a predetermined section among sections to the destined parking position to be lower in a case where the moving object travels while towing the towed vehicle than a case where the moving object travels without the towed vehicle., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 29th, 39th, 47th, 60th-61st, 76th-78th, 84th, 96th-104th, and 124th-128th 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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Matsunaga further teaches:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the route information, whether or not to travel along the towing travel route,, (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th and 139th-141st paragraphs))
Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
[…] and perform the travel control for causing the moving object to travel to the destined parking position according to the route information, in a case where it is determined that it is possible to travel along the towing travel route., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 38th-39th, 51st-52nd, 60th-62nd, 68th, 76th-77th, 94th, 124th, 128th, and 134th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Matsunaga teaches:
A control method in a control device for a moving object which autonomously moves from a parking start position to a destined parking position, (See (Matsunaga: Summary of the Invention – 10th-15th paragraphs))
wherein a processor of the control device performs the control method comprising: acquiring external environment information related to a surrounding situation of the moving object;, (See (Matsunaga: Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 61st-72nd and 75th-80th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
storing at a relevant time route information acquired when the moving object travels from the parking start position to the destined parking position in a storage; performing travel control of the moving object travelling to the destined parking position based on the external environment information and the route information; in a case where the moving object is not towing the towed vehicle, generating, based on the external environment information and the route information stored in the storage, a non-towing travel route along which the moving object travels toward the destined parking position, and performing the travel control based on the non-towing travel route;, (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs, Summary of the Invention – 13th-19th and 23rd-33rd, and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th-136th, 139th-141st, and 174th-176th paragraphs))
Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
and to which a towed vehicle is connectable,, (See (Weston: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph))
acquiring towed vehicle information related to the towed vehicle connected to the moving object;, (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 36th-37th, 44th-45th, 58th-59th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 1-3))
and in a case where the moving object is towing the towed vehicle, generating, based on the external environment information, the route information stored in the storage, and the towed vehicle information, a towing travel route along which the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is connected, travels toward the destined parking position, and performing the travel control based on the towing travel route., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 51st-52nd, 61st-62nd, 74th-77th, and 94th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 12:
Matsunaga teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control program of a control device for a moving object which autonomously moves from a parking start position to a destined parking position, (See (Matsunaga: Summary of the Invention – 10th-15th paragraphs))
the control program causing a processor of the control device to: acquire external environment information related to a surrounding situation of the moving object;, (See (Matsunaga: Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 61st-72nd and 75th-80th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2))
store at a relevant time route information acquired when the moving object travels from the parking start position to the destined parking position in a storage; perform travel control of the moving object travelling to the destined parking position based on the external environment information and the route information; in a case where the moving object is not towing the towed vehicle, generate, based on the external environment information and the route information stored in the storage, a non-towing travel route along which the moving object travels toward the destined parking position, and perform the travel control based on the non-towing travel route;, (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs, Summary of the Invention – 13th-19th and 23rd-33rd, and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th-136th, 139th-141st, and 174th-176th paragraphs))
Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
and to which a towed vehicle is connectable,, (See (Weston: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph))
acquire towed vehicle information related to the towed vehicle connected to the moving object;, (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 36th-37th, 44th-45th, 58th-59th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 1-3))
and in a case where the moving object is towing the towed vehicle, generate, based on the external environment information, the route information stored in the storage, and the towed vehicle information, a towing travel route along which the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is connected, travels toward the destined parking position, and perform the travel control based on the towing travel route., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 51st-52nd, 61st-62nd, 74th-77th, and 94th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Matsunaga further teaches:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to store at a relevant time route information acquired when the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is not connected, travels from the parking start position to the destined parking position in the storage., (See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs, Summary of the Invention – 13th-19th and 23rd-33rd, and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th-136th, 139th-141st, and 174th-176th paragraphs))
Claims 2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0242936 A1) in view of Weston (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0227782 A9) in further view of Hasejima (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0086756 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
[…] and the towing travel route., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 39th, 60th, and 142nd 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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Matsunaga in view of Weston does not teach but Hasejima teaches:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause a display unit to display the non-towing travel route, (See (Hasejima: Description of Embodiments – 46th and 52nd 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 Matsunaga in view of Weston with these above aforementioned teachings from Hasejima in order to create a user-friendly control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Hasejima’s parking assistance device in order to display different travel routes and determine whether a towed vehicle is able to travel along a travel route by predicting whether a safe region around the towed vehicle will collide with an obstacle when a moving object to which the towed vehicle is connected travels on the travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Hasejima would thus provide “a parking assistance device for resetting a parking path when there is an obstacle on the parking path.” (Hasejima: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
[…] issue a notification for prompting a user to perform a predetermined operation without performing the travel control for causing the moving object to travel to the destined parking position according to the route information., (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 38th-39th, 60th, 68th, 124th, 128th, and 134th 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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Matsunaga in view of Weston does not teach but Hasejima teaches:
The control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to, in a case where it is determined that it is impossible to travel along the towing travel route,, (See (Hasejima: Description of Embodiments – 42nd-48th, 114th-116th, and 119th-120th 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 Matsunaga in view of Weston with these above aforementioned teachings from Hasejima in order to create a user-friendly control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Hasejima’s parking assistance device in order to display different travel routes and determine whether a towed vehicle is able to travel along a travel route by predicting whether a safe region around the towed vehicle will collide with an obstacle when a moving object to which the towed vehicle is connected travels on the travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Hasejima would thus provide “a parking assistance device for resetting a parking path when there is an obstacle on the parking path.” (Hasejima: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Matsunaga in view of Weston, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Matsunaga does not teach but Weston teaches:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the towed vehicle is able to travel along the towing travel route by predicting, based on the route information, whether the towed vehicle, (See (Weston: Detailed Description – 38th-39th, 51st-52nd, 60th-62nd, 68th, 76th-77th, 94th, 124th, 128th, and 134th paragraphs, FIG. 5))
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 Matsunaga with these above aforementioned teachings from Weston in order to create a safe control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Weston’s methods and apparatus to monitor and prevent trailer sway of a vehicle and trailer in order to acquire towed vehicle information related to a towed vehicle connected to a moving object and generate a travel route that is a trajectory through which the towed vehicle passes when the moving object travels on a different travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Weston would thus “prevent trailer sway conditions from occurring by predicting trailer sway conditions and reacting to the prediction by activating vehicle controls such as applying a torque to wheels of the trailer coupled to the vehicle” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph), thus improving “maneuverability of the vehicle and a reduced need for user input.” (Weston: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph)
Matsunaga in view of Weston does not teach but Hasejima teaches:
[…] and a safe region around the towed vehicle collide with an obstacle when the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is connected, travels based on the route information., (See (Hasejima: Description of Embodiments – 56th, 70th, 80th, and 124th-126th 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 Matsunaga in view of Weston with these above aforementioned teachings from Hasejima in order to create a user-friendly control device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matsunaga’s parking support apparatus with Hasejima’s parking assistance device in order to display different travel routes and determine whether a towed vehicle is able to travel along a travel route by predicting whether a safe region around the towed vehicle will collide with an obstacle when a moving object to which the towed vehicle is connected travels on the travel route. Combining Matsunaga and Hasejima would thus provide “a parking assistance device for resetting a parking path when there is an obstacle on the parking path.” (Hasejima: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable subject matter in claim 7 includes a predetermined section including a step, and in the case where the moving object travels while towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to set, based on the towed vehicle information and the route information, the travel speed of the moving object to be lower when the towed vehicle climbs over the step than a moment when the moving object climbs over the step.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on June 16th, 2026 have been withdrawn as the “Amendments” and “Remarks” filed by the Applicant on September 14th, 2026 satisfactorily overcome these rejections.
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 14th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Matsunaga and Weston 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.
More specifically, See (Matsunaga: Background of the Invention – 3rd-5th paragraphs, Summary of the Invention – 13th-19th and 23rd-33rd, and Detailed Description of the Embodiment – 124th-136th, 139th-141st, and 174th-176th paragraphs) In doing so, Matsunaga addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “store at a relevant time route information acquired when the moving object travels from the parking start position to the destined parking position in a storage; and perform travel control of the moving object travelling to the destined parking position based on the external environment information and the route information, wherein in a case where the moving object is not towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the external environment information and the route information stored in the storage, a non-towing travel route along which the moving object travels toward the destined parking position, and performs the travel control based on the non-towing travel route” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
Moreover, See (Weston: Detailed Description – 51st-52nd, 61st-62nd, 74th-77th, and 94th paragraphs, FIG. 5) In doing so, Weston addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “and in a case where the moving object is towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the external environment information, the route information stored in the storage, and the towed vehicle information, a towing travel route along which the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is connected, travels toward the destined parking position, and performs the travel control based on the towing travel route” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
As a result, the combination of Matsunaga and Weston addresses "in a case where the moving object is not towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the external environment information and the route information stored in the storage, a non-towing travel route along which the moving object travels toward the destined parking position, and performs the travel control based on the non-towing travel route, and in a case where the moving object is towing the towed vehicle, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the external environment information, the route information stored in the storage, and the towed vehicle information, a towing travel route along which the moving object, to which the towed vehicle is connected, travels toward the destined parking position, and performs the travel control based on the towing travel route" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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
