DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on April 30, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 30, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 7 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0367845 A1 to SANNODO et al. (herein after "Shinya").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Shinya’s parking assist system discloses a method to control operation of an autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general control schematic of a vehicle parking system comprising speed controlled collision avoidance, wherein an object detection unit 11 perceives objects in an environment and inputs that data into an environment recognition unit 21,
PNG
media_image1.png
428
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
see Fig. 2 ~ illustrates a process flow chart comprising process method steps of the vehicle parking system comprising speed controlled collision avoidance, and
PNG
media_image2.png
608
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
see ¶0078 ~ parking control system comprises automated steering and per generated traveling pattern subsequently performed by an autonomous vehicle), comprising:
obtaining data indicative of a plurality of objects in an environment of the autonomous vehicle (see at least ¶0074 ~ "it is determined that the number of objects existing within the second distance from the traveling route of the vehicle M");
entering, based on an ability associated with an autonomy system of the autonomous vehicle (see at least ¶0078 ~ vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and ¶0085 ~ speed pattern is set to a low speed pattern for the vehicle when a plurality of objects are detected),
an operation mode having a vehicle speed restriction (see at least ¶0085 ~ the vehicle is restricted to a low speed traveling pattern (mode) when an object threshold condition being a plurality of objects is exceeded); and
controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle speed restriction of the operation mode. (See at least ¶0085 ~ the vehicle performs travel maneuvering into a target parking position according to a governed / restricted low speed pattern).
As to Claim 2,
Shinya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a total quantity of the plurality of objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle (see at least ¶0074); and
entering the operation mode based on determining that the total quantity of the plurality of objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle exceeds a threshold quantity of objects. (See at least ¶0085 ~ the vehicle is restricted to a low speed traveling pattern (mode) when an object threshold condition being a plurality of objects is exceeded).
As to Claim 3,
Shinya discloses the method of claim 2,
wherein the threshold quantity of objects is based on the ability associated with the autonomy system of the autonomous vehicle. (See at least ¶0074 and ¶0085).
As to Claim 7,
Shinya discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of objects comprises a plurality of pedestrians or bicyclists. (See at least ¶0032; Shinya ~ " The object to be detected is an object that becomes or can become an obstacle when the vehicle is traveling for parking. For example... moving objects such as a pedestrian, a bicycle in the parking lot").
As to Claim 8,
Shinya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising
pruning one or more objects of the plurality of objects from a prediction or motion planning analysis based on the plurality of objects being positioned at a distance greater than a threshold distance from the autonomous vehicle. (See at least ¶0078 - ¶0079; Shinya ~ autonomous vehicle motion planning respective to relative distance of objects, and ¶0084 - ¶0085; Shinya ~ motion planning and vehicle speed determination filters out (prunes) out irrelevant objects that may impede vehicle save travel maneuvering to target parking position).
As to Claim 9,
Shinya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a distance between one or more objects of the plurality of objects and the autonomous vehicle (see at least ¶0074 and ¶0083 - ¶0085; Shinya); and
determining the vehicle speed restriction based on the distance. (See at least ¶0085; Shinya).
As to Claim 10,
Shinya discloses the method of claim 9,
wherein the vehicle speed restriction is based on the distance between one or more objects of the plurality of objects and the autonomous vehicle. (See at least ¶0085; Shinya).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0367845 A1 to SANNODO et al. (herein after "Shinya") as to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0269861 A1 to LIFFMAN et al. (herein after "Liffman").
As to Claim 11,
As shown above, Shinya discloses the method of claim 1 (see at least ¶0085; Shinya), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the operation mode comprises one or more limited operational capabilities, the one or more limited operational capabilities comprising the vehicle speed restriction.
Conversely, Liffman’s policy driven smart vehicle (see ¶0050; Liffman) discloses wherein the operation mode comprises one or more limited operational capabilities, the one or more limited operational capabilities comprising the vehicle speed restriction. (See ¶0050 ~ "policy management server 410 may cause the smart vehicle 430 to perform an attenuation action to avoid violating the operational constraint… reducing speed of the smart vehicle, reducing acceleration of the smart vehicle… for example, if an operational constraint specifies that the smart vehicle 430 is not to be driven in weather that includes hail").
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Shinya’s vehicle parking system comprising speed controlled collision avoidance with operational mode conditions, as taught by Liffman, providing he resultant combination would successfully providing customizable behavior of the smart (autonomous) vehicle based on vehicle policies relative to parking and driving situations / scenarios, thus increasing safety.
Claims 14 – 16 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0367845 A1 to SANNODO et al. (herein after "Shinya") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0269861 A1 to LIFFMAN et al. (herein after "Liffman").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 14,
Shinya discloses an autonomous vehicle (AV) computing system (see Fig. 1 and ¶0078 ~ parking control system comprises automated steering and per generated traveling pattern subsequently performed by an autonomous vehicle), comprising:
one or more processors (see at least ¶0039 ~ "The ECU 20 is an electronic control unit that performs an overall controls of the parking assist apparatus 1… formed of a computer that includes, for example, a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like"); and
memory that stores instructions for execution by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see ¶0039), the operations comprising:
obtaining data indicative of a plurality of objects in an environment of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0074 ~ "it is determined that the number of objects existing within the second distance from the traveling route of the vehicle M");
entering, based on an ability associated with an autonomy system of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0078 ~ vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and ¶0085 ~ speed pattern is set to a low speed pattern for the vehicle when a plurality of objects are detected),
an operation mode having a vehicle speed restriction (see ¶0085 ~ the vehicle is restricted to a low speed traveling pattern (mode) when an object threshold condition being a plurality of objects is exceeded); and
controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle speed restriction of the operation mode. (See ¶0085 ~ the vehicle performs travel maneuvering into a target parking position according to a governed / restricted low speed pattern).
While Shinya discusses computer memory as shown above, Liffman’s policy driven smart vehicle (see ¶0050; Liffman) provides more clarification regarding one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media that store instructions for execution by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations. (See ¶0076; Liffman ~ "non-transitory, computer-readable media").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer memory of Shinya’s parking assist system with non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught by Liffman, to provide facility wherein embedded code exists excluding wired, wireless, or other communication links that transport transitory electrical or other signals, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: distinguishing the system such that program code may be executed apart from a transitory, propagating signal, and performed from a permanently stored medium / media and media where data can be stored and later overwritten.
As to Claim 15,
Shinya/Liffman discloses the AV computing system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a total quantity of the plurality of objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0074; Shinya); and
entering the operation mode based on determining that the total quantity of the plurality of objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle exceeds a threshold quantity of objects. (See ¶0085; Shinya ~ the vehicle is restricted to a low speed traveling pattern (mode) when an object threshold condition being a plurality of objects is exceeded).
As to Claim 16,
Shinya/Liffman discloses the AV computing system of claim 15,
wherein the threshold quantity of objects is based on the ability associated with the autonomy system of the autonomous vehicle. (See ¶0074 and ¶0085; Shinya).
As to Claim 17,
Shinya/Liffman discloses the AV computing system of claim 14,
wherein the operation mode comprises one or more limited operational capabilities, the one or more limited operational capabilities comprising the vehicle speed restriction. (See ¶0050; Liffman ~ "policy management server 410 may cause the smart vehicle 430 to perform an attenuation action to avoid violating the operational constraint… reducing speed of the smart vehicle, reducing acceleration of the smart vehicle… for example, if an operational constraint specifies that the smart vehicle 430 is not to be driven in weather that includes hail").
As to Claim 19,
Shinya/Liffman discloses the AV computing system of claim 14,
wherein the plurality of objects comprises a plurality of pedestrians or bicyclists. (See at least ¶0032; Shinya ~ " The object to be detected is an object that becomes or can become an obstacle when the vehicle is traveling for parking. For example... moving objects such as a pedestrian, a bicycle in the parking lot").
As to Claim 20,
Shinya discloses an autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 1 and ¶0078 ~ parking control system comprises automated steering and per generated traveling pattern subsequently performed by an autonomous vehicle), comprising:
one or more processors (see at least ¶0039 ~ "The ECU 20 is an electronic control unit that performs an overall controls of the parking assist apparatus 1… formed of a computer that includes, for example, a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like"); and
memory that stores instructions for execution by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see ¶0039), the operations comprising:
obtaining data indicative of a plurality of objects in an environment of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0074 ~ "it is determined that the number of objects existing within the second distance from the traveling route of the vehicle M");
entering, based on an ability associated with an autonomy system of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0078 ~ vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and ¶0085 ~ speed pattern is set to a low speed pattern for the vehicle when a plurality of objects are detected),
an operation mode having a vehicle speed restriction (see ¶0085 ~ the vehicle is restricted to a low speed traveling pattern (mode) when an object threshold condition being a plurality of objects is exceeded); and
controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle speed restriction of the operation mode. (See ¶0085 ~ the vehicle performs travel maneuvering into a target parking position according to a governed / restricted low speed pattern).
While Shinya discusses computer memory as shown above, Liffman’s policy driven smart vehicle (see ¶0050; Liffman) provides more clarification regarding one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media that store instructions for execution by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations. (See ¶0076; Liffman ~ "non-transitory, computer-readable media").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer memory of Shinya’s parking assist system with non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught by Liffman, to provide facility wherein embedded code exists excluding wired, wireless, or other communication links that transport transitory electrical or other signals, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: distinguishing the system such that program code may be executed apart from a transitory, propagating signal, and performed from a permanently stored medium / media and media where data can be stored and later overwritten.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6, 12 – 13, and 18 are 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.
In particular, the available prior art appears to be silent in disclosing the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining one or more clusters of the plurality of objects based on the data indicative of the plurality of objects;
determining a total quantity of objects in at least one of the one or more clusters; and
entering the operation mode having the vehicle speed restriction based on determining that the total quantity of objects in the at least one of the one or more clusters exceeds a threshold quantity of objects. Emphasis added.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1, 14, and 20 may/might possibly advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights