DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-5 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2025 s being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
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 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation "when it is determined there exists the collision risk" in line 15. As written, it is not clear what is doing this determined act.
Claims 2-5 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
All dependent claims of this/these claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOMAHINI (US 20210316763) in view of DERENDARZ et al. (US 20180281859).
Regarding claim 1, DOMAHINI teaches:
A control device comprising a processor configured to:
calculate a device travel path for a vehicle transport device at a time of changing a parking position of a vehicle within a parking lot, the vehicle transport device being configured to transport the vehicle by driving autonomously;
calculate a vehicle travel path for a manually driven vehicle to travel;
determine whether there is a collision risk between the manually driven vehicle and the vehicle transport device when the manually driven vehicle deviates from the vehicle travel path; and
change the device travel path when it is determined there exists the collision risk;
manually driven vehicle includes a vehicle with driver,
(at least figs. 1-6, [0057] [0061] discussed automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 in parking facility, taking into account other moving obstacles/vehicles 14, when vehicles 14 deviate from expected/intended path in term of velocity change path of automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 to avoid collision; deviations from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are due to human drivers; in particular [0057] [0090]-[0091], discussed “wherein deviations of such human drivers from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are taking into account”)
DOMAHINI does not explicitly teach:
the vehicle travel path includes vehicle travel path for the vehicle with driver to travel from a parking lot entrance to a designated parking position when the vehicle with driver enters the parking lot;
However, DERENDARZ et al. teaches:
the vehicle travel path includes vehicle travel path for the vehicle with driver to travel from a parking lot entrance to a designated parking position when the vehicle with driver enters the parking lot;
(at least figs. 1-4 [0011]-[0053] showed and discussed system of providing trajectories to park a vehicle, a driver to select, in particular fig. 4) to have trajectories with criterion ([0011]-[0053]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of DOMAHINI with the vehicle travel path includes vehicle travel path for the vehicle with driver to travel from a parking lot entrance to a designated parking position when the vehicle with driver enters the parking lot as taught by DERENDARZ et al. to have trajectories with criterion.
Regarding claim 2, DOMAHINI teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, when determining that the collision risk exists:
control the vehicle transport device to pause;
control the vehicle transport device to temporarily evade; or
recalculate the device travel path,
(at least figs. 1-6, [0057] [0061] discussed automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 in parking facility, taking into account other moving obstacles/vehicles 14, when vehicles 14 deviate from expected/intended path in term of velocity change path of automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 to avoid collision; deviations from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are due to human drivers; in particular [0057] [0090]-[0091], discussed “wherein deviations of such human drivers from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are taking into account”)
Regarding claim 3, DOMAHINI teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to change the device travel path such that an operation of the vehicle transport device is minimized,
(at least figs. 1-6, [0057] [0061] discussed automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 in parking facility, taking into account other moving obstacles/vehicles 14, when vehicles 14 deviate from expected/intended path in term of velocity change path of automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 to avoid collision; deviations from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are due to human drivers; in particular [0057] [0090]-[0091], discussed “wherein deviations of such human drivers from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are taking into account”, discussed “the unchanged path, unchanged in view of the different legs, is executed slower than originally calculated, i.e. it is changed to a dilated path 400′ by means of time dilatation 413”)
Regarding claim 4, DOMAHINI teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to change the device travel path such that a duration for the vehicle transport device to complete transporting the vehicle is minimized,
(at least figs. 1-6, [0057] [0061] discussed automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 in parking facility, taking into account other moving obstacles/vehicles 14, when vehicles 14 deviate from expected/intended path in term of velocity change path of automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 to avoid collision; deviations from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are due to human drivers; in particular [0057] [0090]-[0091], discussed “wherein deviations of such human drivers from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are taking into account”, discussed “It is also possible, in the framework of the given comfort limits, to accelerate the movement so as to pass at a predetermined portion of the path earlier and before another vehicle”)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOMAHINI (US 20210316763) in view of DERENDARZ et al. (US 20180281859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZHANG et al. (US 20200339145).
Regarding claim 5, DOMAHINI teaches:
As applied to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the collision risk exists;
the manually driven vehicle includes target object;
(at least figs. 1-6, [0057] [0061] discussed automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 in parking facility, taking into account other moving obstacles/vehicles 14, when vehicles 14 deviate from expected/intended path in term of velocity change path of automatically driven vehicle 11/vehicle 12 to avoid collision; deviations from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are due to human drivers; in particular [0057] [0090]-[0091], discussed “wherein deviations of such human drivers from the intended path in terms of velocity and position are taking into account”)
DOMAHINI does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the collision risk exists based on: a distance between the target object and the vehicle transport device; directions of travel of the target object and the vehicle transport device; and speeds of the target object and the vehicle transport device;
However, ZHANG et al. teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the collision risk exists based on: a distance between the target object and the vehicle transport device; directions of travel of the target object and the vehicle transport device; and speeds of the target object and the vehicle transport device;
(at least fig. 3 [0053]-[0065] in particular [0055]) for warning a potential collision ([0053]-[0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of DOMAHINI with wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the collision risk exists based on: a distance between the target object and the vehicle transport device; directions of travel of the target object and the vehicle transport device; and speeds of the target object and the vehicle transport device as taught by ZHANG et al. for warning a potential collision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GORDON et al. (US 20180186366) discussed ameliorating an imminent collision between a self-driving vehicle (SDV) and an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
