DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is responsive to amendments filed 04/13/2026.
Claims 19-38 have been amended and are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended independent claim to include the following new limitations (underlined):
“a camera”; “while the vehicle is parked in a parking space of a parking lot, receive a request to drive the vehicle to be moved to a location related to a desired point of a user of the vehicle in the parking lot”; “based on the received request, obtain, based on a plurality of images obtained using the camera, a digital map related to the parking lot, the plurality of images representing the parking lot”; “identifying a first point corresponding to the parking space in which the vehicle is parked and a second point corresponding to the location related to the desired point of the user in the digital map”; “determine, based on the first point and the second point in the digital map, a driving route from the parking space to the location related to the desired point of the user in the digital map”; and, “based on the determined driving route, control the vehicle to be moved to the second location”.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or remotely suggest the amended features. In particular, Applicant argues that KURT does not disclose the claimed step of obtaining a digital map related to the parking lot based on a plurality of images obtained using the camera. The examiner agrees that KURT does not teach obtaining a digital map related to the parking lot based on a plurality of images obtained using the camera. As such, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection has been made in view of LU et al, US 2019/0094025. It is the examiner’s stance that the teachings of LU remedy the deficiencies of KURT as discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 33, lines 5-6, please amend “using the camera” to recite “using a camera” to correct antecedent basis.
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 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second location" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the second location” has been interpreted as “the desired point of the user”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the second location" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the second location” has been interpreted as “the desired point of the user”.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the second location" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the second location” has been interpreted as “the desired point of the user”.
Claims 20-25, 27-32, and 33-38 are rejected by dependence.
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) 19, 24-26, 31-33, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURT et al, US 2018/0050690 in view of LU et al, US 2019/0094025.
Re claims 19, 26, and 33:
KURT teaches a control circuitry for a vehicle, comprising:
A memory and a processor [0026], wherein the processor is configured to:
While the vehicle is parked in a parking space of a parking lot, receive a request to drive the vehicle to be moved to a location related to a desired point of a user of the vehicle in the parking lot (i.e., controller 20 receives a request to un-park the vehicle from a parking spot and move to a destination location [0031]);
Based on the received request, obtain a digital map related to the parking lot (i.e., vehicle communicates with the parking area infrastructure to receive a map of the parking area [0031]);
Identify a first point corresponding to the parking space in which the vehicle is parked and a second point corresponding to the location related to the desired point of the user in the digital map (i.e., the first point corresponds to the parked vehicle location and the second point corresponds to the destination selected by the user or location of mobile phone 14 [0031]);
determine, based on the first point and the second point in the digital map, a driving route from the parking space to the location related to the desired point of the user in the digital map (i.e., a driving path between the parked vehicle and the destination is determined [0031]-[0037]); and
Based on the determined driving route, control the vehicle to be moved to the second location [0037] [Figure 3].
KURT does not teach a camera or that the digital map is obtained based on a plurality of images obtained using the camera.
LU (20190094025) teaches a control circuitry for a vehicle, comprising a camera (206) [0021] [0047] [0079], memory (209) [0097] [Figure 2], processor (204) [0088] [Figure 2], wherein the processor is configured to obtain, based on a plurality of images obtained using the camera, a digital map related to the parking lot, the images representing the parking lot [0057] [0084] [0098] [0101].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of LU in the control circuitry of KURT such that the control circuitry further comprises a camera and obtains the digital map based on a plurality of images obtained using the camera. The incorporation would advantageously enable verification of parking location, which helps to ensure that a correct map is chosen for maneuvering within the parking lot (LU [0026] [0084] [0085]).
Re claims 24, 31, and 38:
KURT, in view of LU, teaches the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of claims 19, 26, and 33, wherein the processor is configured to control a steering angle of the vehicle while controlling the vehicle to be moved to the location related to the desired point of the user of the vehicle (i.e., the processor communicates with the vehicle control system to autonomously operate the vehicle along the driving route, which includes operating a steering control system of the vehicle [0028] [0034]).
Re claims 25 and 32:
KURT, in view of LU, teaches the control circuitry and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claims 19 and 26, wherein the processor is configured to control a braking system of the vehicle while controlling the vehicle to be moved to the location related to the desired point of the user of the vehicle (i.e., the processor communicates with the vehicle control system to autonomously operate the vehicle along the driving route, which includes operating a braking control system [0028]).
Claim(s) 20, 27, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURT et al, US 2018/0050690 in view of LU et al, US 2019/0094025, as applied in claims 19, 26, and 33, and further in view of PARK et al, US 2020/0234574.
Re claims 20, 27, and 34:
KURT, in view of LU, teaches the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of claims 19, 26, and 33, wherein the processor is configured to receive the request to drive the vehicle to be moved to the location related to the desired point of the user of the vehicle from an external electronic device via a communication circuitry (i.e., the processor receives the request from a mobile device 14 via a communication subsystem 18 [0025] [0030]).
KURT does not teach the processor is configured to receive the request from an external electronic device via a communication circuitry configured to support vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication.
PARK teaches a control circuitry for a vehicle, comprising a processor configured to receive communications from external devices (such as mobile terminals, servers, etc.) via a communication circuitry configured to support V2X communication [0248] [0249] [0250] [0255].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of PARK in the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of KURT, such that the request from the external device is received via a communication circuitry configured to support V2X communication. Configuring the communication subsystem to support V2X communication would be for the purpose of facilitating wireless communication between the vehicle and any entity that may affect, or may be affected by, the vehicle.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 29, 30, 36, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURT et al, US 2018/0050690 in view of LU et al, US 2019/0094025, as applied in claims 19, 26, and 33, and further in view of IZUMI et al, US 2018/0229719.
Re claims 22, 29, and 36:
KURT, in view of LU, teaches the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of claims 19, 26, and 33, but does not teach the control circuitry is configured to receive, from a server, information indicating at least one empty parking space including the first location before parking at the first location of the parking lot.
IZUMI teaches control circuitry for a vehicle configured to receive, from a server, (parking-lot managing apparatus 220 is a central server [0034]), information indicating at least one empty parking space including the first location (i.e., parking-lot managing apparatus transmits vacant situations of parking frames to the vehicle [0120] [Figure 8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of IZUMI in the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of KURT, in view of LU, such that the control circuitry receives information indicating at least one empty parking space from a server before parking at the first location of the parking lot. Such incorporation would be for the purpose of notifying the vehicle that a particular parking space is available for parking (IZUMI [0120]).
Re claims 23, 30, and 37:
KURT, in view of LU and IZUMI, teaches the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of claims 22, 29, and 36.
LU further teaches that in order to obtain the digital map, the processor detects object information associated with at least one object from the plurality of images, determines a location of the vehicle based on the object information, and obtains the digital map associated with the determined location from the server (i.e., the vehicle processor determines a location of the vehicle based on one or more predetermined landmarks identified from the plurality of images and may obtain the map from a cloud based server based on the determined location [0054] [0057] [0085] [0098] [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of LU in the control circuitry, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and method of KURT for the purpose of enabling verification of parking location, which helps to ensure that a correct map is chosen for maneuvering within the parking lot (LU [0026] [0084] [0085]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 28, and 35 would be potentially allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BATUR et al, US 2018/0095474, teaches camera-based autonomous parking, wherein a vehicle camera is configured to capture a plurality of images and construct a map of a parking lot based on the plurality of images [0022].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and e-mail are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights