Patent Application 17358317 - METHOD FOR SECURING A STARTING MOVEMENT OF A - Rejection

Patent Application 17358317 - METHOD FOR SECURING A STARTING MOVEMENT OF A

Title: METHOD FOR SECURING A STARTING MOVEMENT OF A SEMI-AUTOMATED OR FULLY AUTOMATED VEHICLE

Application Information

• Invention Title: METHOD FOR SECURING A STARTING MOVEMENT OF A SEMI-AUTOMATED OR FULLY AUTOMATED VEHICLE
• Application Number: 17358317
• Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2021-06-25T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2021-06-25T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 701
• National Sub-Class: 026000
• Examiner Employee Number: 90526
• Art Unit: 3665
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0362632🔗
• US 0086760🔗
• US 0240502🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
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 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.  
Introduction
Claims 15, 18-20, 22-24, 26, and 27 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action.    
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 22, 26, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typo in these claims; “incudes” should be “includes”.  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 22-24, 26, and 27 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 22 recites the limitation "a processor" in line 23.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.  It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation. 
Claim 22 recites two “a processor” and “a controller”; however, it is indefinite how these components fit into the scope of the claim.  The claim is directed to “a device” comprising “at least one imaging sensor including a camera” and “a memory unit”.  Therefore, it is indefinite if the “processor” or “controller” is part of the device or not.  The scope of the claim is indefinite.  
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 22 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. 
Claim 23 recites a step of outputting a signal, but does not disclose what is outputting the signal.  Further, the components that make up the device of the claim, i.e., an image sensor and a memory unit, are incapable of outputting a signal.  Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.  
Claim 26 recites “a processor” and “a controller”; however, it is indefinite how these components fit into the scope of the claim.  The claim is only directed to a vehicle comprising a device that comprises an “image sensor” and a “memory unit”.  Therefore, it is indefinite if the processor and controller are part of the vehicle or not resulting in the scope of the claim being indefinite.  
Claim 27 recites “a controller”; however, it is indefinite how this controller fits into the scope of the claim.  The claim is directed to a memory medium storing a computer program that when executed by a computer performs steps.  It is indefinite if the controller is part of the computer or not resulting in the scope of the claim being indefinite.  
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) 15, 18, 19, 22-24, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Application Publication 102014211869 to Simon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0086760 to Al Nahlaoui et al., “Tackle Parallel Parking with These Tips” to Wawanesa, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0240502 to Stauss et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0362632 to Fokin et al. 
As per claim 15, Simon discloses a method for securing a starting movement of a semi-automated or fully automated vehicle, the vehicle including at least one imaging sensor, the at least one imaging sensor including a near-field camera which is configured to capture images of a close-up range of the vehicle (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 2, 4, and 5), the method comprising the following steps:
carrying out a recognition of objects in the close-up range of the vehicle prior to a starting movement of the vehicle when the vehicle is stationary by carrying out the following steps (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 2, 4, and 5):
Simon does not explicitly disclose a) capturing an instantaneous image of the close-up range of the vehicle using the imaging sensor and recognizing an object of the objects located in the close-up range of the vehicle by comparing the instantaneous image with a previously stored comparison image, wherein the object is recognized when the comparison indicates that a structure of the comparison image is not completely visible, but is covered in parts by the object, and
However, the above features are taught by Al Nahlaoui (Al Nahlaoui; At least paragraph(s) 16 and 24).  At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Al Nahlaoui into the invention of Simon with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results.  Adding the object detection of Al Nahlaoui would provide additional assurance that no objects exist around or on the vehicle, thus providing safer operation with little or no additional cost (Al Nahlaoui; At least paragraph(s) 45).
b) temporally successively capturing at least two instantaneous images using the at least one imaging sensor and recognizing the object in the close-up range of the vehicle by comparing the temporally successively captured images and evaluating optical flow or another differential method (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 5, 6, 33, 38, 42, and 50), and
c) changing a spatial position of the at least one imaging sensor and capturing at least two images at respectively different spatial positions of the at least one imaging sensor and recognizing the object in the close-up range of the vehicle by analyzing changes, by using a structure-from-motion analysis, of the images captured at the different positions of the imaging sensor (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 5, 6, 33, 37, and 39); and
wherein after carrying out the recognition of the object by carrying out each of steps a), b), and c), preventing the starting movement of the vehicle when the object has been recognized (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 2, 4, and 16).
wherein, if no object has been recognized by the steps a) and/or b) and/or c) when the vehicle is stationary, a slow starting movement of the vehicle takes place (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 33 and 38), images of the close-up range of the vehicle being captured using the imaging sensor and recognizing the object in the close-up range of the vehicle by an analysis, by a structure-from-motion analysis, of image changes of the images captured during the slow starting movement of the vehicle, a further travel of the vehicle being stopped when the object has been recognized (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 6, 16, 35, and 41; one in the art would understand that autonomous movement of the vehicle would begin if no objects are found and would stop if an object is subsequently found to avoid collision).
However, even if the above limitation is interpreted as not being explicitly disclose, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have started a slow movement and continued using the imaging sensor.  Continuing to observe the environment would provide necessary information for the vehicle to drive.  Also, larger movements would provide a greater ability to sense in three dimensions, thus making further assurance that there are no objects before driving off.  
Simon does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle initially drives in a direction opposite an unparking direction and subsequently drives slowly in the unparking direction, the unparking direction being a driving direction in which a regular unparking process of the vehicle takes place.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Wawanesa (Wawanesa; At least page 3, steps 1-5 under “Exiting a Parallel Parking Spot”).  At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Wawanesa into the invention of Simon with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results.  Initially moving in the opposite direction and then proceeding slowly in the unparking direction provides greater assurance of avoiding a collision with the forward vehicle, as discussed in at least this section of Wawanesa.
Simon discloses an autonomous vehicle (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 2), which are well-known in the art to use cameras during driving, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one image is captured when the vehicle initially drives in the direction opposite the unparking direction.  
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Stauss (Stauss; At least paragraph(s) 14-19).  At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Stauss into the invention of Simon with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results.  Using cameras, i.e., capturing an image, during movement of the vehicle ensures driving maneuvers can be planned or performed very precisely (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 18) and ensures that the vehicle does not collide with an object during movement, which would reduce cost and danger for the driver and vehicle.  
Simon discloses that distance-measuring sensors, such as ultrasonic, radar or laser sensors, are commonly used to detect nearby objects and avoid collision (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 3), but does not explicitly disclose wherein one or multiple distances between the vehicle and at least one object of the objects in surroundings of the vehicle is also determined using at least one distance sensor situated at the vehicle, which is configured as an ultrasonic sensor and/or a radar sensor and/or a LIDAR sensor, wherein the starting movement of the vehicle is prevented or aborted if the at least one object of the objects is detected by the at least one of the distance sensor,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fokin (Fokin; At least paragraph(s) 19, 24, 28, and 29).  At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fokin into the invention of Simon with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results.  Detecting the objects using distance-measuring sensors provides a reliable method of sensing objects, especially coming from the side, which may be difficult to detect using other methods.  Preventing or aborting the starting movement when an object is detected would provide a safer experience for the vehicle and reduce costs if a collision were to occur.  
wherein the close-up range of the vehicle includes an area around the vehicle up to 1 meter around the vehicle (the close-up range as defined above would include an area around the vehicle up to a meter around the vehicle.  See at least paragraph(s) 34 of Al Nahlaoui and paragraph(s) 6 of Simon).
As per claims 18 and 19, Simon does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the structure of the comparison image includes a vehicle contour and the object is recognized when the vehicle contour is not completely visible in the instantaneous image, but is covered in parts by the object.
wherein the structure of the comparison image includes a ground structure, and the object is recognized when the ground structure is not completely visible in the instantaneous image, but is covered in parts by the object.
However, the above features are taught by Al Nahlaoui (Al Nahlaoui; At least paragraph(s) 16, 25, and 26).  At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Al Nahlaoui into the invention of Simon with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results.  Adding the object detection of Al Nahlaoui would provide additional assurance that no objects exist around or on the vehicle, thus providing safer operation with little or no additional cost (Al Nahlaoui; At least paragraph(s) 45)
As per claim 22, 23, 26, and 27, Simon discloses a device, vehicle, and memory medium (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 1 and 6) for performing the method of claim 15.  Therefore, claims 22, 23, 26, and 27 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 15.  
As per claim 24, Simon discloses wherein the at least one imaging sensor is mounted at a folding exterior mirror of the vehicle (Simon; At least paragraph(s) 11 and 37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon, in view of Al Nahlaoui, Wawanesa, and Fokin as applied to claims 15 and 22 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent 11,427,195 to Pertsel et al.
As per claim 20, Simon does not explicitly disclose wherein objects are additionally recognized in the images captured by the at least one imaging sensor using methods of digital image processing, and are classified based on their shape.
However, the above features are taught by Pertsel (Pertsel; At least column 17, line(s) 43-50 and column 18, line(s) 11-13).  At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Pertsel into the invention of Simon with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results.  Classifying the object would provide a better understanding of how the object may act or what the object may do, therefore, providing a better understanding of the environment and possible reactions, as discussed in at least columns 1 and 2 of Pertsel.  
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 9, filed 03/20/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.  The amendment adds a processor and controller, but do not relate these components to the remainder of the claim.  It is indefinite if these components are part of the “device”, “vehicle”, or “storage medium” of the claim and, thus, part of the claim scope.  The scopes of the claims are indefinite.  
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 03/20/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered, but are not persuasive.  With respect to Applicant's arguments that the prior art does not disclose the added limitation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.  The prior arts are for detecting objects around a vehicle during unparking and would include the area around the vehicle up to a meter, as cited above.  With respect to Applicant's arguments that the rejection should be withdrawn because the prior arts are intended to solve different problems, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.   It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masharn, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).  The prior art disclose all of the limitations, as written under broadest reasonable interpretation, as discussed in the rejection above.  
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.  The prior art shows the state of the art. 
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached on 571-270-3713. 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.





/David P. Merlino/           Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665