CTNF 19/210,662 CTNF 88850 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5, 8, 9, and 12-13 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0326871) . Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a method for operating a vehicle having at least one sensor device and a control device coupled with the sensor device (abstract), wherein the method comprises: acquiring at least environmental data of the vehicle by the sensor device (See abstract and [0010] which teach a microphone to acquire noises in the environment outside the vehicle.), triggering an automated parking maneuver by a remote-control command of a user of the vehicle (See abstract, Fog. 3 and [0032]-[0035] the vehicle initiates an automated parking procedure when user issues a voice command to park. ), determining by the control device, at least on the basis of the acquired environmental data, whether the automated parking maneuver is a park-out maneuver or a park-in maneuver, and triggering a start command by the control device if the automated parking maneuver is a park-out maneuver determined by the control device, wherein the vehicle is not switched off in consequence of the start command (See abstract, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0032], and [0038] teach determining a parking maneuver based on the user’s issued command which is sensed from a microphone. The vehicle is not switched off on the user’s command.). Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the automated parking maneuver is determined by the control device as being a park-out maneuver at least when the control device determines, on the basis of the acquired environmental data, that the vehicle was arranged in a dedicated parking position before the automated parking maneuver (See [0043]-[0044]). Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the automated parking maneuver is determined by the control device as being a park-in maneuver at least when the control device determines, on the basis of the acquired environmental data, that the vehicle is arranged in a dedicated parking position after the automated parking maneuver (See [0032] and [0043]-[0044]). Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the automated parking maneuver is determined by the control device as being a park-in maneuver at least when the control device determines, on the basis of the acquired environmental data, that the vehicle is arranged in a dedicated parking position after the automated parking maneuver (See [0032] and [0043]-[0044] the vehicle does not switch off at any time regardless of whether a time interval is reached.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krekel et al. (US pub No. 2023/0107437) . Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi teaches user commands (See [0009]) but does not teach an adjustable time interval for shut down. Krekel teaches a shutdown after defined time duration set by a timer is elapsed (See [0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Kobayashi’s system to include Krekel’s teachings to prevent inadvertent vehicle motor usage and energy waste. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambert et al. (US Pat No. 12,183,200) . Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi does not teach determining by the control device an environment situation in which the vehicle is arranged, at least on the basis of the acquired environmental data, wherein the control device determines that the automated parking maneuver is a park-out maneuver at least when the determined environment situation corresponds to a public area environment. Lambert teaches determining by the control device an environment situation in which the vehicle is arranged, at least on the basis of the acquired environmental data, wherein the control device determines that the automated parking maneuver is a park-out maneuver at least when the determined environment situation corresponds to a public area environment (See abstract, Col. 3 lines 7-12, and Col. 17 line 42 to Col. 18 line 14 teach using location based context information, including if the car is in a public area, to determine an active measure for a vehicle to implement. Col. 24 line 62 to Col. 25 line 13 teaches an active measure includes rerouting a parked car to a different to a different location.). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Kobayashi’s system to include Lambert’s teachings to reduce parking costs and ensuring a safe location for the parked vehicle. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0184981) . Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi does not teach the vehicle comprises a memory device coupled with the control device, and in that the method further comprises: storing a dataset in the memory device by the control device in consequence of a triggered automated parking maneuver, wherein the dataset comprises at least activity information, a time value and/or a location value, wherein the activity information indicates whether a start command or a switch-off command has been triggered in consequence of the triggered automated parking maneuver and/or whether a respective start command or a switch-off command has been corrected by a user input, wherein the time value indicates a time of day at which the automated parking maneuver was triggered, and wherein the location value indicates a position at which the automated parking maneuver was triggered. Jung teaches the vehicle comprises a memory device coupled with the control device, and in that the method further comprises: storing a dataset in the memory device by the control device in consequence of a triggered automated parking maneuver, wherein the dataset comprises at least activity information, a time value and/or a location value, wherein the activity information indicates whether a start command or a switch-off command has been triggered in consequence of the triggered automated parking maneuver and/or whether a respective start command or a switch-off command has been corrected by a user input, wherein the time value indicates a time of day at which the automated parking maneuver was triggered, and wherein the location value indicates a position at which the automated parking maneuver was triggered (See abstract, [0664] and [0668]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Kobayashi’s system to include Jung’s teachings for greater driver convenience. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jian et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0388501) . Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi does not teach retrieving a dataset from the memory device by the control device, in consequence of a triggered parking maneuver, on the basis of the time value and/or the location value for the triggered parking maneuver, and triggering a start command or a switch-off command in dependence on the activity information of the retrieved dataset. Jian teaches retrieving a dataset from the memory device by the control device, in consequence of a triggered parking maneuver, on the basis of the time value and/or the location value for the triggered parking maneuver, and triggering a start command or a switch-off command in dependence on the activity information of the retrieved dataset (See abstract and [0090]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Kobayashi’s system to include Jian’s teachings for greater driver convenience. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0326871) and Schuler (US Pub No. 2018/0329410) . Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi teaches vehicle, comprising: at least one sensor device (See [0022], [0039] and [0045]); and a control device coupled with the sensor device, wherein the sensor device is at least adapted to acquire at least environmental data of the vehicle (See [0022], [0039] and [0045]), and wherein the control device is at least adapted to: trigger an automated parking maneuver of the vehicle in consequence of a remote-control command received from a user (See abstract, Fog. 3 and [0032]-[0035] the vehicle initiates an automated parking procedure when user issues a voice command to park.), determine, at least on the basis of the acquired environmental data, whether the automated parking maneuver is a park-out maneuver or a park-in maneuver, and trigger a start command if the automated parking maneuver is a park-out maneuver determined by the control device, wherein the vehicle is not switched off in consequence of the start command (See abstract, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0032], and [0038] teach determining a parking maneuver based on the user’s issued command which is sensed from a microphone. The vehicle is not switched off on the user’s command.). Kobayashi does not teach trigger a switch-off command if the automated parking maneuver is a park-in maneuver determined by the control device, wherein the vehicle is switched off in consequence of the switch-off command. Schuler teaches trigger a switch-off command if the automated parking maneuver is a park-in maneuver determined by the control device, wherein the vehicle is switched off in consequence of the switch-off command (See [0050]-[0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Kobayashi to include Schuler’s teachings to ensure safety and prevent excessive energy consumption by the vehicle. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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. /THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 2 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 3 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 4 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 5 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 6 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 7 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 19/210,662 Page 8 Art Unit: 2686
Prosecution Insights