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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 3, the acronym/abbreviation PEPS is used without providing the full wording or meaning in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0122], the acronym/abbreviation PEPS is used without providing the full wording or meaning. Also, in P[0093], the description of Figure 3 does not include the acronym/abbreviation PEPS or the full wording or meaning.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term BLUETOOTH in P[0093], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 4, the phrase “the controlling, based on the failure indication information, the vehicle” should be “the controlling, based on the failure indication information, of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 4, the phrase “the controlling, based on the failure indication information, the vehicle” should be “the controlling, based on the failure indication information, of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the phrase “the controlling the vehicle” should be “the controlling of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the central gateway control unit" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “a remote parking paused state” in line 2, while claim 4 also recites “a remote parking paused state” in line 4. It is unclear if this is a new remote parking paused state, or the same remote parking paused state. The examiner assumes it is the same remote parking paused state for continued examination.
Claim 8 recites “a first operation” in line 2, while claim 7 also recites “a first operation” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear if this is a new first operation, or the same first operation. The examiner assumes it is the same first operation for continued examination.
Claim 8 recites “a user” in line 2, while claim 7 also recites “a user” in line 3. It is unclear if this is a new user, or the same user. The examiner assumes it is the same user for continued examination.
Claim 9 recites, “a virtual key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is stuck” in lines 4 thru 6. It is unclear what is referenced by the phrase “is stuck”, whether the virtual key is stuck or the vehicle is stuck. The examiner assumes the limitation should be, “a virtual key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space” for continued examination.
Claim 9 recites, “a key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is out of control” in lines 6 and 7. It is unclear what is referenced by the phrase “out of control”. The examiner assumes the limitation should be, “a key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space” for continued examination.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first communication network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the remote parking controller" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the central gateway control unit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the third communication network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the intelligent remote control terminal system" in lines 4 and . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the central gateway control unit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “a first operation” in line 2, while claim 16 also recites “a first operation” in lines 3 and 4. It is unclear if this is a new first operation, or the same first operation. The examiner assumes it is the same first operation for continued examination.
Claim 17 recites “a user” in line 2, while claim 16 also recites “a user” in line 4. It is unclear if this is a new user, or the same user. The examiner assumes it is the same user for continued examination.
Claim 18 recites, “a virtual key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is stuck” in lines 4 thru 6. It is unclear what is referenced by the phrase “is stuck”, whether the virtual key is stuck or the vehicle is stuck. The examiner assumes the limitation should be, “a virtual key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space” for continued examination.
Claim 18 recites, “a key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is out of control” in lines 6 and 7. It is unclear what is referenced by the phrase “out of control”. The examiner assumes the limitation should be, “a key that is of the mobile terminal and that is used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space” for continued examination.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first communication network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the remote parking controller" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the central gateway control unit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 thru 7, 9 thru 16 and 18 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al Chinese Patent Application Publication Number CN 112141088 A (translation cited).
Regarding claim 1 Zhou et al disclose the claimed method, a parking control method (Figures 2 and 3), comprising:
the claimed obtaining failure indication information when a vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space based on parking control information received from a mobile terminal, “the method comprises: when the vehicle is in remote control parking mode, obtaining the first communication quality information of the vehicle and the remote control terminal; when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal” (abstract), the remote control terminal equates to the claimed mobile terminal, the abnormal communication equates to the claimed failure indication information, the remote control parking mode equates to the claimed vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space, wherein
the claimed failure indication information indicates that at least one of a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, “when the transmission rate is less than the preset rate, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (translation page 6 paragraph 2), “when the data transmission delay is greater than or equal to the preset time, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the signal strength is less than the preset intensity, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the fluctuation peak value of the transmission rate is greater than or equal to the preset transmission peak value, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the transmission rate is less than the preset transmission rate, and/or the fluctuation peak value of the signal strength is greater than or equal to the preset transmission peak value, the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), and “under the remote control parking mode, the vehicle is parking according to the remote control instruction sent by the mobile phone, and if the communication between the vehicle and the mobile phone is abnormal, then affecting the normal parking of the vehicle, such as the steering instruction sent by the mobile phone cannot be received by the vehicle in time, causing the vehicle not to steer in time; for example, the parking instruction sent by the mobile phone does not reach the vehicle” (page 6 paragraph 3) (all equate to the claimed failure indication information of a remote control function); and
the claimed controlling the vehicle to brake based on the failure indication information, “when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal according to the first communication quality information, controlling the vehicle brake” (abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claim limitations are directed to the failure indication information of claim 1 being the failure of a communication network of the vehicle. Claim 1 recites that the failure indication information may be any one of three options (a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle). In the rejection of claim 1, Zhou et al disclose the claimed failure of a remote control function of the mobile terminal (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the three options of claim 1 and that option is not required for claims 2 and 3, it is not necessary for Zhou et al do disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 3. Claims 2 and 3 are merely limitations directed to the contingency of the failure of a communication network of the vehicle being rejected in claim 1. If the failure of a communication network of the vehicle is not the option rejected in claim 1, then there are no limitations directed to the failure of a communication network of the vehicle required for claims 2 and 3. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected by Zhou et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the previous claim requirements.
Regarding claim 4 Zhou et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the method further comprises:
the claimed when the failure indication information indicates that the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails, controlling the vehicle to enter a remote parking paused state based on the failure indication information, “if the communication recovers to normal in the preset time period, it can be considered that the communication of the vehicle and the mobile phone is only temporary abnormality” (translation page 7 paragraph 5), and “the vehicle determines the communication abnormality and brake after braking, if the communication is restored in a certain time, it can continue to remote control parking” (page 8 paragraph 1), the temporary holding of the braking for a certain time until communication with the remote control terminal equates to the claimed remote parking paused state.
Regarding claim 5 Zhou et al disclose the claimed method of claims 1 and 4 (see above), wherein after the controlling of the vehicle to enter the remote parking paused state (claim 4), the method further comprises:
the claimed controlling the vehicle to adjust from the remote parking paused state to the remote parking terminated state, “if the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is not restored to normal in the preset time period, exiting the remote control parking mode” (translation page 7 paragraph 6), the exiting of the remote control parking mode equates to the claimed remote parking terminated state; or
the claimed controlling the vehicle to adjust from the remote parking paused state to a remote parking operated state based on first indication information that the remote control function of the mobile terminal is restored, “if the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is restored to normal in the preset time period, obtaining the remote control instruction sent by the remote control terminal, and parking according to the remote control instruction” (page 7 paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 6 Zhou et al disclose the claimed method of claims 1 and 4 (see above), wherein the method further comprises: the claimed sending first notification information indicating a remote parking status to the mobile terminal, “when exiting the remote control parking mode, it also can send the corresponding exit prompt to the mobile phone” (translation page 7 paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 7 Zhou et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed receiving braking indication information sent by the mobile terminal in response to a first operation of a user, “the user can send remote parking instruction to the vehicle through the mobile phone; when the vehicle receives the remote control parking instruction, the remote control parking mode will be entered; at this time, the user can be operated by the mobile phone; the mobile phone sends the corresponding remote control instruction to the vehicle according to the operation of the user; when the vehicle receives the remote control instruction, sending the corresponding control signal to each actuator of the vehicle according to the remote control instruction, so that the vehicle executes the corresponding parking operation” (translation page 5 paragraph 6); and
the claimed controlling the vehicle to brake based on the braking indication information, “step S20, when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal according to the first communication quality information, controlling the vehicle brake” (page 6 paragraph 1, and Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9 Zhou et al disclose the claimed that the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails comprises at least one of: the mobile terminal exits a monitoring interface used to display a process in which the vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of the parking space; or a virtual key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is stuck; or a key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space, “the mobile phone is connected with the vehicle by means of Bluetooth; the user can press the virtual upper front key in the remote control APP of the mobile phone; the mobile phone sends the forward Bluetooth remote control instruction to the vehicle according to the operation; when the vehicle receives the Bluetooth remote control instruction, the Bluetooth remote control instruction is converted into a corresponding CAN (Controller Area Network) control signal, and then the CAN control signal is sent to the corresponding actuator to control the vehicle to move forward. and when the vehicle is in remote control parking mode, the vehicle will obtain communication quality information of communication connection with the remote control terminal” (translation page 5 last paragraph) (claimed virtual key), and “the vehicle can establish a communication connection with the remote control terminal through the communication module; the remote control terminal can be the mobile phone of the user, tablet computer, palm computer and other mobile terminal, also can be the intelligent key corresponding to the vehicle, is convenient for explanation, the remote control terminal is explained by the mobile phone of the user as an example. In other words, the vehicle can be connected with the mobile phone of the user through the communication module; the user can send remote parking instruction to the vehicle through the mobile phone; when the vehicle receives the remote control parking instruction, the remote control parking mode will be entered” (page 5 last paragraph) (claimed key).
Regarding claim 10 Zhou et al disclose the claimed apparatus, a vehicle hardware structure (Figure 1), comprises:
the claimed processor, “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of the vehicle hardware architecture involved in the embodiment of the present invention. In the embodiment of the invention, the user terminal comprises a processor 1001 (such as central processing unit, CPU)” (translation page 4 paragraph 7);
the claimed non-transitory computer readable radium storing a program executed by the processor, “With continued reference to FIG. 1, a memory 1005 as a readable storage medium in FIG. 1 may include an operating system, a network communication module and a computer program.” (page 4 paragraph 7), the program including instructions to:
the claimed obtain failure indication information when a vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space based on parking control information received from a mobile terminal, “the method comprises: when the vehicle is in remote control parking mode, obtaining the first communication quality information of the vehicle and the remote control terminal; when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal” (abstract), the remote control terminal equates to the claimed mobile terminal, the abnormal communication equates to the claimed failure indication information, the remote control parking mode equates to the claimed vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space, wherein
the claimed failure indication information indicates that at least one of a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, “when the transmission rate is less than the preset rate, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (translation page 6 paragraph 2), “when the data transmission delay is greater than or equal to the preset time, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the signal strength is less than the preset intensity, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the fluctuation peak value of the transmission rate is greater than or equal to the preset transmission peak value, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the transmission rate is less than the preset transmission rate, and/or the fluctuation peak value of the signal strength is greater than or equal to the preset transmission peak value, the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), and “under the remote control parking mode, the vehicle is parking according to the remote control instruction sent by the mobile phone, and if the communication between the vehicle and the mobile phone is abnormal, then affecting the normal parking of the vehicle, such as the steering instruction sent by the mobile phone cannot be received by the vehicle in time, causing the vehicle not to steer in time; for example, the parking instruction sent by the mobile phone does not reach the vehicle” (page 6 paragraph 3) (all equate to the claimed failure indication information of a remote control function); and
the claimed control the vehicle to brake based on the failure indication information, “when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal according to the first communication quality information, controlling the vehicle brake” (abstract).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claim limitations are directed to the failure indication information of claim 10 being the failure of a communication network of the vehicle. Claim 10 recites that the failure indication information may be any one of three options (a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle). In the rejection of claim 10, Zhou et al disclose the claimed failure of a remote control function of the mobile terminal (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the three options of claim 10 and that option is not required for claims 11 and 12, it is not necessary for Zhou et al to disclose the limitations of claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 are merely limitations directed to the contingency of the failure of a communication network of the vehicle being rejected in claim 10. If the failure of a communication network of the vehicle is not the option rejected in claim 10, then there are no limitations directed to the failure of a communication network of the vehicle required for claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected by Zhou et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the previous claim requirements.
Regarding claim 13 Zhou et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claim 10 (see above), wherein the instructions further include:
the claimed when the failure indication information indicates that the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails, control the vehicle to enter a remote parking paused state based on the failure indication information, “if the communication recovers to normal in the preset time period, it can be considered that the communication of the vehicle and the mobile phone is only temporary abnormality” (translation page 7 paragraph 5), and “the vehicle determines the communication abnormality and brake after braking, if the communication is restored in a certain time, it can continue to remote control parking” (page 8 paragraph 1), the temporary holding of the braking for a certain time until communication with the remote control terminal equates to the claimed remote parking paused state.
Regarding claim 14 Zhou et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claims 10 and 13 (see above), wherein the instructions further include:
the claimed control the vehicle to adjust from the remote parking paused state to the remote parking terminated state, “if the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is not restored to normal in the preset time period, exiting the remote control parking mode” (translation page 7 paragraph 6), the exiting of the remote control parking mode equates to the claimed remote parking terminated state; or
the claimed control the vehicle to adjust from the remote parking paused state to a remote parking operated state based on first indication information that the remote control function of the mobile terminal is restored, “if the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is restored to normal in the preset time period, obtaining the remote control instruction sent by the remote control terminal, and parking according to the remote control instruction” (page 7 paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 15 Zhou et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claims 10 and 13 (see above), wherein the instructions further include: the claimed send first notification information indicating a remote parking status to the mobile terminal, “when exiting the remote control parking mode, it also can send the corresponding exit prompt to the mobile phone” (translation page 7 paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 16 Zhou et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claim 10 (see above), further instructions include:
the claimed receive braking indication information sent by the mobile terminal in response to a first operation of a user, “the user can send remote parking instruction to the vehicle through the mobile phone; when the vehicle receives the remote control parking instruction, the remote control parking mode will be entered; at this time, the user can be operated by the mobile phone; the mobile phone sends the corresponding remote control instruction to the vehicle according to the operation of the user; when the vehicle receives the remote control instruction, sending the corresponding control signal to each actuator of the vehicle according to the remote control instruction, so that the vehicle executes the corresponding parking operation” (translation page 5 paragraph 6); and
the claimed control the vehicle to brake based on the braking indication information, “step S20, when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal according to the first communication quality information, controlling the vehicle brake” (page 6 paragraph 1, and Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 18 Zhou et al disclose the claimed that the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails comprises at least one of: the mobile terminal exits a monitoring interface used to display a process in which the vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of the parking space; or a virtual key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is stuck; or a key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space, “the mobile phone is connected with the vehicle by means of Bluetooth; the user can press the virtual upper front key in the remote control APP of the mobile phone; the mobile phone sends the forward Bluetooth remote control instruction to the vehicle according to the operation; when the vehicle receives the Bluetooth remote control instruction, the Bluetooth remote control instruction is converted into a corresponding CAN (Controller Area Network) control signal, and then the CAN control signal is sent to the corresponding actuator to control the vehicle to move forward. and when the vehicle is in remote control parking mode, the vehicle will obtain communication quality information of communication connection with the remote control terminal” (translation page 5 last paragraph) (claimed virtual key), and “the vehicle can establish a communication connection with the remote control terminal through the communication module; the remote control terminal can be the mobile phone of the user, tablet computer, palm computer and other mobile terminal, also can be the intelligent key corresponding to the vehicle, is convenient for explanation, the remote control terminal is explained by the mobile phone of the user as an example. In other words, the vehicle can be connected with the mobile phone of the user through the communication module; the user can send remote parking instruction to the vehicle through the mobile phone; when the vehicle receives the remote control parking instruction, the remote control parking mode will be entered” (page 5 last paragraph) (claimed key).
Regarding claim 19 Zhou et al disclose the claimed non-transitory computer readable radium storing a program executed by the processor, “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of the vehicle hardware architecture involved in the embodiment of the present invention. In the embodiment of the invention, the user terminal comprises a processor 1001 (such as central processing unit, CPU)” (translation page 4 paragraph 7), and “With continued reference to FIG. 1, a memory 1005 as a readable storage medium in FIG. 1 may include an operating system, a network communication module and a computer program.” (page 4 paragraph 7), the program including instructions for:
the claimed obtaining failure indication information when a vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space based on parking control information received from a mobile terminal, “the method comprises: when the vehicle is in remote control parking mode, obtaining the first communication quality information of the vehicle and the remote control terminal; when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal” (abstract), the remote control terminal equates to the claimed mobile terminal, the abnormal communication equates to the claimed failure indication information, the remote control parking mode equates to the claimed vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space, wherein
the claimed failure indication information indicates that at least one of a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, “when the transmission rate is less than the preset rate, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (translation page 6 paragraph 2), “when the data transmission delay is greater than or equal to the preset time, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the signal strength is less than the preset intensity, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the fluctuation peak value of the transmission rate is greater than or equal to the preset transmission peak value, it can be considered that the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), “when the transmission rate is less than the preset transmission rate, and/or the fluctuation peak value of the signal strength is greater than or equal to the preset transmission peak value, the communication is abnormal” (page 6 paragraph 2), and “under the remote control parking mode, the vehicle is parking according to the remote control instruction sent by the mobile phone, and if the communication between the vehicle and the mobile phone is abnormal, then affecting the normal parking of the vehicle, such as the steering instruction sent by the mobile phone cannot be received by the vehicle in time, causing the vehicle not to steer in time; for example, the parking instruction sent by the mobile phone does not reach the vehicle” (page 6 paragraph 3) (all equate to the claimed failure indication information of a remote control function); and
the claimed controlling the vehicle to brake based on the failure indication information, “when determining that the communication of the vehicle and the remote control terminal is abnormal according to the first communication quality information, controlling the vehicle brake” (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations are directed to the failure indication information of claim 19 being the failure of a communication network of the vehicle. Claim 19 recites that the failure indication information may be any one of three options (a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle). In the rejection of claim 19, Zhou et al disclose the claimed failure of a remote control function of the mobile terminal (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the three options of claim 19 and that option is not required for claim 20, it is not necessary for Zhou et al to disclose the limitations of claim 20. Claim 20 merely has limitations directed to the contingency of the failure of a communication network of the vehicle being rejected in claim 19. If the failure of a communication network of the vehicle is not the option rejected in claim 19, then there are no limitations directed to the failure of a communication network of the vehicle required for claim 20. Claim 20 stands rejected by Zhou et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the claim requirements.
Claim(s) 1 thru 6, 9 thru 15 and 18 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimomura et al Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0174081 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed method, sequence diagrams and flowcharts for automatic parking control and the occurrence of abnormalities (Figures 2 thru 9), comprising:
the claimed obtaining failure indication information when a vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space based on parking control information received from a mobile terminal, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304).” (P[0083] and Figure 3), and “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404)” (P[0088] and Figure 4) the abnormality equates to the claimed failure indication information, the automatic parking control equates to the claimed vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space, wherein
the claimed failure indication information indicates that at least one of a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, “the control unit is configured to detect an abnormality related to a drive device (34a) that applies driving force to the vehicle and a lever position indicating a position of a shift lever (42a) set by a driver seated in a driver's seat of the vehicle, and preset, as the specific abnormality, an abnormality related to a shift-by-wire mechanism (42, 44, 44a, and 44b) that changes a state of a power transmission device that transmits the driving force generated by the drive device to a drive wheel of the vehicle to a state corresponding to the lever position” P[0014], the abnormality related to the drive device and shift by wire mechanism equates to the claimed failure indication information of a parking related actuator of the vehicle; and
the claimed controlling the vehicle to brake based on the failure indication information, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304). Further, the control device 10 executes vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306).” (P[0083] and Figures 3), and “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404), and executes the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306 shown in FIG. 4).” (P[0088] and Figure 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claim limitations are directed to the failure indication information of claim 1 being the failure of a communication network of the vehicle. Claim 1 recites that the failure indication information may be any one of three options (a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle). In the rejection of claim 1, Shimomura et al disclose the claimed failure of a parking related actuator of the vehicle (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the three options of claim 1 and that option is not required for claims 2 and 3, it is not necessary for Shimomura et al to disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 3. Claims 2 and 3 are merely limitations directed to the contingency of the failure of a communication network of the vehicle being rejected in claim 1. If the failure of a communication network of the vehicle is not the option rejected in claim 1, then there are no limitations directed to the failure of a communication network of the vehicle required for claims 2 and 3. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected by Shimomura et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the claim requirements.
Regarding claim 4 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprises:
the claimed when the failure indication information indicates that the parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, controlling the vehicle to enter a remote parking terminated state based on the failure indication information, “When the vehicle VA is stopped by the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 308), the control device 10 changes the state of the power transmission device 34b to the parked state, operates the EPB actuator 56, and changes the ignition to the off state (step 310).” (P[0084] and Figure 3), the state of the ignition being off equates to the claimed remote parking terminated state.
Regarding claim 5 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed method of claims 1 and 4 (see above), the claim limitations of claim 5 are directed to controlling the vehicle after the entering into the remote parking paused state. Claim 4 recites that vehicle enters the remote parking paused state for a failure indication information that indicates the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails, or to enter a remote parking terminated state when a communication network of the vehicle fails, and/or when a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails. In the rejection of claim 4, Shimomura et al disclose the claimed controlling the vehicle to enter a remote parking terminated state when there is failure of a parking related actuator of the vehicle (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the options of claim 4 and that option is not required for claim 4, it is not necessary for Shimomura et al to disclose the limitations of claim 5. Claim 5 merely has limitations directed to the contingency of the entering a remote parking terminated state being rejected in claim 4. If the remote parking paused state is not the option rejected in claim 4, then there are no limitations directed to entering the remote parking terminated state required for claim 5. Claim 5 stands rejected by Shimomura et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the claim requirements.
Regarding claim 6 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed method of claims 1 and 4 (see above), wherein the method further comprises: the claimed sending first notification information indicating a remote parking status to the mobile terminal, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304).” (P[0083] and Figure 3), “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404), and executes the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306 shown in FIG. 4).” (P[0088] and Figure 4), and “At step 645, the CPU transmits a start failure signal to the mobile terminal 23, proceeds to step 695, and temporarily ends this routine [automatic parking control].” (P[0120] and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed that the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails comprises at least one of: the mobile terminal exits a monitoring interface used to display a process in which the vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of the parking space; or a virtual key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is stuck; or a key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space, “Upon receiving the general abnormality signal, the mobile terminal 23 displays a general abnormality screen 290 on the display 230 (step 312). The general abnormality screen 290 includes an abnormality message area 292 and an OK button 294. In the abnormality message area 292, a message indicating that the general abnormality has occurred is displayed. When the OK button 294 is operated, the mobile terminal 23 ends displaying the general abnormality screen 290 on the display 230.” (P[0086] and Figure 3), and “Upon receiving the specific abnormality signal, the mobile terminal 23 displays a specific abnormality screen 295 on the display 230 (step 408). The specific abnormality screen 295 includes the abnormality message area 292 and the OK button 294, similarly to the general abnormality screen 290. In the abnormality message area 292, a message indicating that the specific abnormality has occurred and prompting the user to get on the vehicle VA and operate the brake pedal 52a is displayed.” (P[0091] and Figure 4) (claimed monitoring interface used to display a process).
Regarding claim 10 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed apparatus, vehicle control device 10 (Figure 1), comprising:
the claimed processor, “The ECU is an abbreviation for an electronic control unit, and is an electronic control circuit having a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU), a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a non-volatile memory, an interface, and the like as a main component. The “non-volatile memory” is a storage device (for example, an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a hard disk, etc.) capable of writing, reading, and erasing data. The ECU may be referred to as a “control unit” or a “controller”. The CPU realizes various functions by executing instructions (routines) stored in the memory (ROM). All or some of the above ECUs 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 may be integrated into one ECU. A part of the functions of the above ECUs 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 may be realized by other ECUs 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60.” (P[0035] and Figure 1);
the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executed by the processor, “The CPU realizes various functions by executing instructions (routines) stored in the memory (ROM).” (P[0035] and Figure 1);
the claimed obtain failure indication information when a vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space based on parking control information received from a mobile terminal, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304).” (P[0083] and Figure 3), and “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404)” (P[0088] and Figure 4) the abnormality equates to the claimed failure indication information, the automatic parking control equates to the claimed vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space, wherein
the claimed failure indication information indicates that at least one of a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, “the control unit is configured to detect an abnormality related to a drive device (34a) that applies driving force to the vehicle and a lever position indicating a position of a shift lever (42a) set by a driver seated in a driver's seat of the vehicle, and preset, as the specific abnormality, an abnormality related to a shift-by-wire mechanism (42, 44, 44a, and 44b) that changes a state of a power transmission device that transmits the driving force generated by the drive device to a drive wheel of the vehicle to a state corresponding to the lever position” P[0014], the abnormality related to the drive device and shift by wire mechanism equates to the claimed failure indication information of a parking related actuator of the vehicle; and
the claimed control the vehicle to brake based on the failure indication information, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304). Further, the control device 10 executes vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306).” (P[0083] and Figures 3), and “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404), and executes the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306 shown in FIG. 4).” (P[0088] and Figure 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claim limitations are directed to the failure indication information of claim 10 being the failure of a communication network of the vehicle. Claim 10 recites that the failure indication information may be any one of three options (a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle). In the rejection of claim 10, Shimomura et al disclose the claimed failure of a parking related actuator of the vehicle (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the three options of claim 10 and that option is not required for claims 11 and 12, it is not necessary for Shimomura et al to disclose the limitations of claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 are merely limitations directed to the contingency of the failure of a communication network of the vehicle being rejected in claim 10. If the failure of a communication network of the vehicle is not the option rejected in claim 10, then there are no limitations directed to the failure of a communication network of the vehicle required for claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected by Shimomura et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the previous claim requirements.
Regarding claim 13 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claim 10 (see above), the instructions further include:
the claimed when the failure indication information indicates that the parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, control the vehicle to enter a remote parking terminated state based on the failure indication information, “When the vehicle VA is stopped by the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 308), the control device 10 changes the state of the power transmission device 34b to the parked state, operates the EPB actuator 56, and changes the ignition to the off state (step 310).” (P[0084] and Figure 3), the state of the ignition being off equates to the claimed remote parking terminated state.
Regarding claim 14 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claims 10 and 13 (see above), the claim limitations of claim 14 are directed to controlling the vehicle after the entering into the remote parking paused state. Claim 13 recites that vehicle enters the remote parking paused state for a failure indication information that indicates the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails, or to enter a remote parking terminated state when a communication network of the vehicle fails, and/or when a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails. In the rejection of claim 13, Shimomura et al disclose the claimed controlling the vehicle to enter a remote parking terminated state when there is failure of a parking related actuator of the vehicle (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the options of claim 13 and that option is not required for claim 13, it is not necessary for Shimomura et al to disclose the limitations of claim 14. Claim 14 merely has limitations directed to the contingency of the entering a remote parking terminated state being rejected in claim 13. If the remote parking paused state is not the option rejected in claim 13, then there are no limitations directed to entering the remote parking terminated state required for claim 14. Claim 14 stands rejected by Shimomura et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the claim requirements.
Regarding claim 15 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed apparatus of claims 10 and 13 (see above), wherein the instructions further include: the claimed send first notification information indicating a remote parking status to the mobile terminal, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304).” (P[0083] and Figure 3), “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404), and executes the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306 shown in FIG. 4).” (P[0088] and Figure 4), and “At step 645, the CPU transmits a start failure signal to the mobile terminal 23, proceeds to step 695, and temporarily ends this routine [automatic parking control].” (P[0120] and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 18 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed that the remote control function of the mobile terminal fails comprises at least one of: the mobile terminal exits a monitoring interface used to display a process in which the vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of the parking space; or a virtual key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space is stuck; or a key of the mobile terminal used to control the vehicle to park in or pull out of the parking space, “Upon receiving the general abnormality signal, the mobile terminal 23 displays a general abnormality screen 290 on the display 230 (step 312). The general abnormality screen 290 includes an abnormality message area 292 and an OK button 294. In the abnormality message area 292, a message indicating that the general abnormality has occurred is displayed. When the OK button 294 is operated, the mobile terminal 23 ends displaying the general abnormality screen 290 on the display 230.” (P[0086] and Figure 3), and “Upon receiving the specific abnormality signal, the mobile terminal 23 displays a specific abnormality screen 295 on the display 230 (step 408). The specific abnormality screen 295 includes the abnormality message area 292 and the OK button 294, similarly to the general abnormality screen 290. In the abnormality message area 292, a message indicating that the specific abnormality has occurred and prompting the user to get on the vehicle VA and operate the brake pedal 52a is displayed.” (P[0091] and Figure 4) (claimed monitoring interface used to display a process).
Regarding claim 19 Shimomura et al disclose the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executed by a processor, “The CPU realizes various functions by executing instructions (routines) stored in the memory (ROM).” (P[0035] and Figure 1), including instructions for:
the claimed obtaining failure indication information when a vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space based on parking control information received from a mobile terminal, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304).” (P[0083] and Figure 3), and “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404)” (P[0088] and Figure 4) the abnormality equates to the claimed failure indication information, the automatic parking control equates to the claimed vehicle is controlled to park in or pull out of a parking space, wherein
the claimed failure indication information indicates that at least one of a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle fails, “the control unit is configured to detect an abnormality related to a drive device (34a) that applies driving force to the vehicle and a lever position indicating a position of a shift lever (42a) set by a driver seated in a driver's seat of the vehicle, and preset, as the specific abnormality, an abnormality related to a shift-by-wire mechanism (42, 44, 44a, and 44b) that changes a state of a power transmission device that transmits the driving force generated by the drive device to a drive wheel of the vehicle to a state corresponding to the lever position” P[0014], the abnormality related to the drive device and shift by wire mechanism equates to the claimed failure indication information of a parking related actuator of the vehicle; and
the claimed controlling the vehicle to brake based on the failure indication information, “When the general abnormality occurs after the automatic parking control is started in step 214 shown in FIG. 3 (step 302), the control device 10 transmits a general abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 304). Further, the control device 10 executes vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306).” (P[0083] and Figures 3), and “When the specific abnormality occurs after the start of the automatic parking control (step 214 shown in FIG. 4) (step 402), the control device 10 transmits the specific abnormality signal to the mobile terminal 23 (step 404), and executes the vehicle stop deceleration control (step 306 shown in FIG. 4).” (P[0088] and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations are directed to the failure indication information of claim 19 being the failure of a communication network of the vehicle. Claim 19 recites that the failure indication information may be any one of three options (a remote control function of the mobile terminal, a communication network of the vehicle, or a parking related actuator of the vehicle). In the rejection of claim 19, Shimomura et al disclose the claimed failure of a remote control function of the mobile terminal (see above). Because the rejection is directed to one of the three options of claim 19 and that option is not required for claim 20, it is not necessary for Shimomura et al to disclose the limitations of claim 20. Claim 20 merely has limitations directed to the contingency of the failure of a communication network of the vehicle being rejected in claim 19. If the failure of a communication network of the vehicle is not the option rejected in claim 19, then there are no limitations directed to the failure of a communication network of the vehicle required for claim 20. Claim 20 stands rejected by Shimomura et al by having limitations that are necessary to meet the claim requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al Chinese Patent Application Publication Number CN 112141088 A (translation cited) in view of Seo et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0074759 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 17 Zhou et al teach the claimed method of claims 1 and 7 (see above), and the apparatus of claims 10 and 16 (see above). Zhou et al do not teach the claimed sending information about an obstacle around the vehicle to a mobile terminal before receiving braking indication information sent by the mobile terminal in response to a first operation of a user, and the claimed information about the obstacle indicates a distance between the obstacle and the vehicle. The avoidance of obstacles is common and well known in the art of parking vehicles (avoid collisions with other cars, pedestrians, poles, curbs, etc.). It would be necessary for a vehicle sensing system to known the location of the different obstacles in order to not hit them. The location would include a bearing and a distance.
Seo et al teach,
the claimed sending information about an obstacle around the vehicle before receiving braking indication information sent by the mobile terminal in response to a first operation of a user, “The vehicle parking controlling apparatus 100 may include the communication device 110 communicating with a remote controller located inside or outside a vehicle and the processor 130 that senses a surrounding obstacle and performs avoidance steering control of the vehicle to avoid the collision with the surrounding obstacle when receiving a vehicle control command from the remote controller.” P[0052] (the remote controller would need to receive the obstacle information in order to send commands to avoid the obstacle), “the sensing module 200 may include a distance measurement sensor (an ultrasonic sensor, radar, or the like), an image sensor (a camera or the like), an acceleration sensor, a yaw rate sensor, a wheel speed sensor, a steering angle sensor, a distance sensor, and the like. At this time, the ultrasonic sensor, the radar, the camera and the like may be mounted on the front, rear, left, and right sides of the vehicle to obtain information about obstacles in front, rear, right, and left of the vehicle.” P[0063], and “the vehicle parking controlling apparatus 100 determines that the vehicle is in the entrance mode in operation S104, senses an obstacle in the driving direction of the vehicle in operation S105, and immediately enters an avoidance steering control mode in operation S106 when an obstacle is sensed” (P[0088] and Figure 9); and
the claimed information about the obstacle indicates a distance between the obstacle and the vehicle, “The information about obstacles may include image information of an obstacle, information about the size of an obstacle, information about a distance from an obstacle, information about the profile of an obstacle, information about the feature point of an obstacle, information about the location of an obstacle, information about the speed of an obstacle, information about the acceleration of an obstacle” P[0063].
The sensed distance of the obstacle of Seo et al would be used in the method and system of Zhou et al as further control of the vehicle to be parked without hitting any objects. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the parking control method of Zhou et al with the obstacle position sensing and communication with the remote control of Seo et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, avoid a collision with the surrounding obstacle (Seo et al P[0009]).
Related Art
The examiner points to Sugano PGPub 2021/0086757 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Sugano is directed to an automatic parking system that fails due to an abnormality or communication interruption (abstract), and with a communication interruption, an instruction to stop a vehicle from parking is issued (Figure 9A), (this related to the claimed communication network of the vehicle failure).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights