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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, et al., US 2016/0272244 A1, in view of DeCia, et al., US 2020/0110172 A1.
As per Claim 1, Imai teaches a control device (¶ 22) comprising circuitry configured to:
perform control of autonomous parking for moving a moving body to a target parking position or of parking assistance (¶¶ 32-33);
detect an obstacle in surroundings of the moving body (¶ 34); and
perform notification to a user of the moving body when the obstacle is detected (¶ 29).
Imai does not expressly teach that the circuitry is configured to: stop the notification in response to an operation by the user; and cancel the stop of the notification in a case where a cancellation condition is satisfied, and the cancellation condition is different from each other between a case where the moving body is manually driven by the user and a case where the control is being performed. DeCia teaches that the circuitry is configured to:
stop the notification in response to an operation by the user (¶ 40; as “the driver is exiting the vehicle and the vehicle has been shut off”); and
cancel the stop of the notification in a case where a cancellation condition is satisfied, and the cancellation condition is different from each other between a case where the moving body is manually driven by the user and a case where the control is being performed (¶ 42; transition from state 58 to state 59 of Figure 8 if “a user manually activates a powered opener of the tailgate while there is insufficient clearance for it to open without contacting the closed garage door”).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the vehicle controller of Imai with the display controller of DeCia, in order to encourage more careful driving in more constricted spaces as a vehicle parks or comes to rest.
As per Claim 2, Imai does not expressly teach that in the case where the control is being performed, the circuitry is configured to cancel the stop of the notification when a distance between the moving body and the obstacle satisfies a predetermined condition, and in the case where the moving body is manually driven by the user, the circuitry is configured not to cancel the stop of the notification based on the predetermined condition. DeCia teaches that in the case where the control is being performed, the circuitry is configured to cancel the stop of the notification when a distance between the moving body and the obstacle satisfies a predetermined condition (¶¶ 40, 42; as “a transition is made to state 53 and a parked mode begins” as in Figure 8), and in the case where the moving body is manually driven by the user, the circuitry is configured not to cancel the stop of the notification based on the predetermined condition (¶ 42; as “a transition is made to state 59 where the user is given an alert message to inform them that a collision would occur upon opening”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 3, Imai does not expressly teach that the cancellation condition of the case where the moving body is manually driven by the user is at least one of what a vehicle speed of the moving body is equal to or higher than a predetermined speed, what a traveling direction of the moving body is switched, and that an operation for cancelling the stop of the notification by the user is received. DeCia teaches that the cancellation condition of the case where the moving body is manually driven by the user is at least one of what a vehicle speed of the moving body is equal to or higher than a predetermined speed, what a traveling direction of the moving body is switched, and that an operation for cancelling the stop of the notification by the user is received (¶¶ 44-45; if the driver has turned off the vehicle or exited the vehicle). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 4, Imai teaches that the control causes the moving body to travel at a first speed or less (¶ 81), and the predetermined speed is higher than the first speed (¶ 76).
As per Claim 5, Imai teaches that the predetermined condition is what the distance between the moving body and the obstacle is equal to or less than a predetermined distance (¶¶ 54-55; “at just a margin distance DIST from the collision position”).
As per Claim 6, Imai teach that the circuitry is configured to perform an audio notification (¶ 74) and a visual notification to the user (¶ 72; “from the sound generation device 105 and/or from the display device 106” of Figure 1). Imai does not expressly teach that when the circuitry stops the notification, the circuitry stops the audio notification and continues the visual notification. DeCia teaches that when the circuitry stops the notification, the circuitry stops the audio notification (¶ 19; in favor of “audio sensing”) and continues the visual notification (¶ 22; “a notification could also be displayed on a user's mobile or wearable device if a tailgate opening event occurred after the vehicle was shut off”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 7, Imai teaches a control method performed by a processor of a control device (¶¶ 22, 44), comprising:
performing control of autonomous parking for moving a moving body to a target parking position or of parking assistance (¶¶ 32-33);
detecting an obstacle in surroundings of the moving body (¶ 34); and
performing notification to a user of the moving body when the obstacle is detected (¶ 29).
Imai does not expressly teach that the control method further comprises: stopping the notification in response to an operation by the user; and canceling the stop of the notification in a case where a cancellation condition is satisfied, and the cancellation condition is different from each other between a case where the moving body is manually driven by the user and a case where the control is being performed. DeCia teaches:
stopping the notification in response to an operation by the user (¶ 40; as “the driver is exiting the vehicle and the vehicle has been shut off”); and
canceling the stop of the notification in a case where a cancellation condition is satisfied, and the cancellation condition is different from each other between a case where the moving body is manually driven by the user and a case where the control is being performed (¶ 42; transition from state 58 to state 59 of Figure 8 if “a user manually activates a powered opener of the tailgate while there is insufficient clearance for it to open without contacting the closed garage door”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 8, Imai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (¶ 23; drive device 103 of Figure 1) that stores a control program for causing a processor of a control device to execute a process (¶¶ 22, 44), the process comprising:
performing control of autonomous parking for moving a moving body to a target parking position or of parking assistance (¶¶ 32-33);
detecting an obstacle in surroundings of the moving body (¶ 34); and
performing notification to a user of the moving body when the obstacle is detected (¶ 29).
Imai does not expressly teach that the process further comprises: stopping the notification in response to an operation by the user; and canceling the stop of the notification in a case where a cancellation condition is satisfied, and3 the cancellation condition is different from each other between a case where the moving body is manually driven by the user and a case where the control is being performed. DeCia teaches that the process further comprises:
stopping the notification in response to an operation by the user (¶ 40; as “the driver is exiting the vehicle and the vehicle has been shut off”); and
canceling the stop of the notification in a case where a cancellation condition is satisfied, and the cancellation condition is different from each other between a case where the moving body is manually driven by the user and a case where the control is being performed (¶ 42; transition from state 58 to state 59 of Figure 8 if “a user manually activates a powered opener of the tailgate while there is insufficient clearance for it to open without contacting the closed garage door”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights