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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “state sensors for…”, “environmental sensors for ….” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the state module for…” in claim 2 and “the environment module for….” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim “the state module” recites the limitation" in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “state sensors” while Claim 2 introduces “state module” for the first time.
Claim “the environment module” recites the limitation" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “environment sensors” while Claim 3 introduces “environment module”
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim limitation “not switched on” is:
Ambiguous vehicle state:
ignition off?
accessory mode?
sleep mode?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a state of a vehicle using state sensors, recognizing an environment of the vehicle including availability and location of parking spaces using environment sensors, selecting a parking assistance mode based on the determined state and environment, and presenting an offer of the selected parking assistance mode on a mobile device or via a control unit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, including generic state sensors, environment sensors, and a control unit configured to perform selection and presentation functions, merely implement the abstract idea of collecting vehicle and environmental information, analyzing the information, and providing a user-facing parking assistance selection without improving sensor technology, vehicle control systems, or computing functionality. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited sensors, control unit, and mobile device are generic, routine, and conventional components performing their expected functions of sensing, processing, and displaying information, and when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not provide an inventive concept or any technological improvement.
Claims 7–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a computerized method for determining a state of a vehicle, recognizing an environment of the vehicle including availability and location of parking spaces, selecting a parking assistance mode based on the determined state and environment, and offering the selected parking assistance mode. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, including processor-executed instructions and generic data processing steps, merely apply the abstract idea of collecting vehicle state and environmental data, analyzing that data, and making a selection for user output using conventional computing functionality without any improvement to computer operations or vehicle technology. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and associated data handling steps are generic and routine computer functions that perform standard information processing, and when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they fail to provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself.
Claims 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a processor-based system configured to determine a state of a vehicle, determine an environment of the vehicle including availability and location of parking spaces, select a parking assistance mode based on the determined state and environment, and present an offer associated with the selected parking assistance mode on a mobile device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, including a generic processor, control unit, and mobile device interface, merely implement the abstract idea of data collection, analysis, and decision-making for parking assistance using conventional computer components without any technical improvement to vehicle systems, sensor operation, or computing architecture. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor, control unit, and communication/display functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art and, when considered separately and in combination, do not amount to an inventive concept or improve any technological field.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and sensing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeland et al. (US 2022/0080956) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2021/0380168), further in view of Bettger et al. (US 2019/0310624).
Claim 1:
SEELAND shows "a parking assistance system having at least two parking assistance modes for a vehicle", wherein the control circuit automatically chooses between at least two parking assistance functions (SEELAND, ¶[0017]).
SEELAND further shows "state sensors for determining a state of the vehicle", wherein a sensor apparatus detects a gripping status of the steering wheel and the control circuit determines the operating state of the vehicle based on the detected sensor information (SEELAND, ¶¶[0018], [0062], [0073]).
SEELAND further shows "environment sensors for recognizing an environment of the vehicle, including availability and location of parking spaces relative to the vehicle," wherein environment sensors automatically recognize parking spaces surrounding the vehicle (SEELAND, ¶¶[0066], [0072]).
SEELAND further shows "a control unit configured to select a first parking assistance mode from the at least two parking assistance modes based on the state of the vehicle and the environment," wherein the control circuit determines the vehicle operating state from the steering sensor, determines that a parking maneuver is to be performed based on the detected parking environment, and automatically selects a first parking assistance function (SEELAND, ¶¶[0072]-[0073]).
However, SEELAND does not show "presenting an offer on a mobile device to use the first selected parking assistance mode." SEELAND communicates the selected parking assistance function through vehicle-integrated interfaces and requests driver confirmation, but does not disclose presenting the offer on a mobile device (SEELAND, ¶[0046]).
MIYAZAKI shows an in-vehicle HMI that presents parking target candidate positions and parking-related information to the driver (MIYAZAKI, ¶¶[0033], [0046]). MIYAZAKI does not teach presenting the selected parking assistance mode on a mobile device.
BETTGER shows that a mobile device communicates with the remote parking assistance system and that the vehicle instructs the mobile device to prompt the user regarding parking operations. Specifically, BETTGER teaches that the remote park assist system is activated through a mobile device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, or key fob) (BETTGER, ¶[0017]), and further teaches that when a new parking space is detected, the electronic control unit instructs the mobile device to prompt the user regarding the parking operation (BETTGER, ¶[0034]).
However, BETTGER does not teach presenting an offer on the mobile device to use the first selected parking assistance mode. Rather, BETTGER prompts the user regarding acceptance of a parking space and operation of the remote parking assist system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the parking assistance system of SEELAND by incorporating the user-mobile-device communication techniques taught by BETTGER, while utilizing the parking assistance architecture and user interaction concepts evidenced by MIYAZAKI, so that parking assistance information and user prompts could be communicated through a mobile device in addition to the vehicle interface, thereby improving user accessibility, remote interaction, and convenience while maintaining the parking assistance functionality of SEELAND.
Such modification merely substitutes one known user interface for another known user interface used in the same field of vehicle parking assistance systems and would have predictably resulted in presenting parking-related information to a user through a mobile device.
Motivation to Combine
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of SEELAND, MIYAZAKI, and BETTGER because it would be an implementation of use of known techniques to improve a similar device in the same way. SEELAND already teaches automatic selection among multiple parking assistance functions based upon vehicle state and parking environment. BETTGER teaches using a mobile device as a user interface for remote parking assistance communications and prompts. Incorporating BETTGER's known mobile-device communication technique into the parking assistance system of SEELAND would have predictably provided an additional user interface for communicating parking assistance information without changing the underlying parking assistance operation. MIYAZAKI further evidences conventional presentation of parking assistance information to a user through an HMI within the same technical field, reinforcing that communicating parking-related information to the user was well known. The proposed combination therefore represents the application of known user-interface techniques to a known parking assistance system to obtain the predictable benefit of allowing the user to receive parking assistance communications on a mobile device.
Claim 2
Claim 2 limitation:
“The parking assistance system according to claim 1, the state module for determining the state of the vehicle comprises sensors that sense an operating state of the vehicle.”
SEELAND disclosure
SEELAND discloses a sensor apparatus (e.g., steering grip / hands-on detection sensor) used to determine an operating state of the vehicle for parking assistance selection (SEELAND, ¶[0062], ¶[0073]).
➡️ SEELAND explicitly teaches:
sensors detecting vehicle/driver operating state
use of sensed state in control logic
Thus, SEELAND alone meets the limitation in a functional sense.
MIYAZAKI disclosure
MIYAZAKI discloses multiple vehicle-integrated sensors including:
wheel speed sensors
steering angle sensors
vehicle motion calculation based on sensor input
(MIYAZAKI, ¶[0029], ¶[0032], ¶[0047])
➡️ MIYAZAKI explicitly teaches:
sensors that directly sense operating state of the vehicle (movement, speed, steering dynamics)
BETTGER disclosure
BETTGER does not meaningfully contribute to this limitation because it focuses on environment sensing and mobile-device-based remote activation, not vehicle operating-state sensing.
➡️ BETTGER does not independently teach this limitation.
SEELAND = explicitly teaches operating-state sensing via driver/vehicle interaction sensors
MIYAZAKI = explicitly teaches vehicle motion/state sensors (speed/steering)
Both references independently satisfy the limitation, but in different forms of “operating state”
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement a “state module comprising sensors that sense an operating state of the vehicle” as claimed, because SEELAND already teaches using sensor-based vehicle/driver state detection for parking assistance control decisions, and MIYAZAKI teaches conventional vehicle sensors (wheel speed and steering angle sensors) that inherently determine vehicle operating conditions. Combining these teachings would merely integrate known sensor types into a known parking assistance control system to achieve predictable results in determining vehicle operating state.
Claim 3:
Limitation 3: “The parking assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the environment module for recognizing the environment of the vehicle comprises one or more of: at least one ultrasonic sensor, at least one camera, at least one radar unit, or at least one LiDAR unit.”
SEELAND shows “...the control circuit 26 is connected to... environment sensors 30. These sensors may record information relating to the environment...” (¶[0066], Page 5). However, SEELAND does not explicitly disclose the specific sensor types recited in claim 3 (ultrasonic, camera, radar, LiDAR).
MIYAZAKI shows disclosure of environment sensing using known vehicle perception systems including imaging and ranging sensors for vehicle surroundings perception (as generally consistent with parking assistance perception systems). However, MIYAZAKI does not explicitly enumerate the full claimed sensor set in a single explicit teaching tied to an “environment module” for parking space recognition.
BETTGER shows “RePA systems use range detection sensors (e.g., ultrasonic sensors, radar, LiDAR, cameras, etc.) to sense the environment around the vehicle...” (¶[0017]). BETTGER explicitly discloses each of the claimed sensor types for environment recognition and parking space detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the environment sensing module of SEELAND in view of the known sensor modalities taught by BETTGER, as also consistent with general vehicle perception teachings in MIYAZAKI, to explicitly implement ultrasonic, camera, radar, and/or LiDAR sensors for recognizing the vehicle environment and detecting parking space availability and location, because such sensors are well-known, interchangeable environment perception components in autonomous and semi-autonomous parking systems.
It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights