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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0094536) in view of Stark (US 2019/0092341).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 06/28/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Stark. These references are analogous as both relate to autonomous vehicle control.
As per Claim 1:
Suzuki discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle control device comprising:… a storage unit configured to store map information; wherein the map information is map information on a region including a predetermined determination area and a travelable area where traveling in the second travel mode is possible,”
Suzuki Paragraphs [0041]-[0042] disclose map data. Paragraph [0045] discloses identifying matching environmental details to determine whether automatic parking can occur which represents a determination area.
“and the at least one processor is configured to determine, in response to the vehicle entering the determination area while the vehicle is traveling in the first travel mode, a travel condition in the second travel mode, the travel condition including whether external environment information obtained by the external environment recognition unit and the map information stored in the storage unit satisfy a predetermined matching condition”
Suzuki Paragraph [0038] discloses identifying whether a vehicle has been parked at a specific location before by comparing environmental data with historical data and reflects that assertion by switching into an automatic guidance mode. This reflects a travel mode condition being met.
“,transition, in response to determining that the travel condition is satisfied and the vehicle enters the travelable area, to the second travel mode, and cause the vehicle to travel in the second travel mode based on the map information stored in the storage unit and the external environment information obtained by the external environment recognition unit.”
Suzuki Paragraph [0058], which is reflective of Figure 8, discloses transitioning to an automatic guidance mode from a first travel mode based on the external environment matching a criteria and then automatically guiding a vehicle in the travelable area.
Suzuki does not disclose the following limitation that Stark teaches:
“at least one processor configured to perform travel control for moving a vehicle to a target position and to transition between a first travel mode and a second travel mode, the vehicle including an external environment recognition unit configured to perform external environment recognition”
Stark Paragraph [0056] teaches a vehicle that transitions from one autonomous mode ("second autonomous mode" in the reference) to another autonomous mode ("third autonomous mode") which operates in a specific location when a vehicle crosses a specific zone (entry 642 in Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Suzuki with the autonomous to autonomous mode transition taught by Stark. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by utilizing autonomous movement in more situations.
With regards to Claim 2, Suzuki in view of Stark teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the storage unit stores the map information based on the external environment information obtained by the external environment recognition unit.”
Suzuki Paragraph [0005] discloses a storage for map data.
With regards to Claim 3, Suzuki in view of Stark teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the storage unit stores the map information based on the external environment information obtained by the external environment recognition unit during past traveling of the vehicle.”
Suzuki Paragraph [0049] discloses comparing stored information about historically travelled environments.
With regards to Claim 4, Suzuki in view of Stark teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the travelable area in the region indicated by the map information is an area set by a user.”
Suzuki Paragraph [0038] teaches a user setting a mode switching unit, the mode switching unit is tasked with determining whether an area is automatically traversable or not (i.e. whether it is a new parking situation or an old one) and therefore qualifies as a region set by the user for parking.
With regards to Claim 5, Suzuki in view of Stark teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle to travel in the first travel mode until the vehicle enters the travelable area even when it is determined that the travel condition is satisfied.”
Suzuki Figure 8 teaches that the system will recognize an area as travelable but still not automatically guide the vehicle unit the vehicle has arrived at the travelable location.
With regards to Claim 6, Suzuki in view of Stark teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the travel condition includes at least one of condition whether a state in which a travel speed of the vehicle in the determination area exceeds a first speed does not continue for a predetermined time or more, and condition whether the travel speed of the vehicle in the determination area does not exceed a second speed.”
Stark Paragraph [0056] teaches autonomous travel in a travelable area with a speed limit designed for said area and therefore renders obvious that a vehicle exceeding said speed would not be controllable in said area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Suzuki in view of Stark further with the speed condition taught by Stark. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by limiting the speed of travel.
As per Claim 7: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 8: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Related References
Tokuhiro (US 2022/0274586)
Related to parking support methods.
Sugano (US 2022/0212657)
Related to automated valet parking system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights