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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-20 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 02/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-20 remain pending in the application.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided below, which was necessitated based on Applicant's amendments which changed the scope of the claims.
Regarding the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are partially persuasive in view of the amendments. The claimed limitations “route generation unit …” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 18; “route transmission unit …” in claims 1, 7, and 8; “position acquisition unit …” in claim 5; and “route exclusion unit …” in claims 4 and 5 remain to be objected as discussed below. The examiner interprets these claimed limitations as a function of the process/controller (see figure 7 and paragraph [0062] of the specification).
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant's arguments have been considered but are partially persuasive in view of the amendments. The amendments raise new issues that are discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, --of time-- should be added after “predetermined period”; and
In claim 1, --_______-- in front of claim limitation, e.g., “a route generation unit generating …”, should be removed. The same issue also in claims 11 and 12;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“route generation unit …” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 18;
“route transmission unit …” in claims 1, 7, and 8;
“position acquisition unit …” in claim 5; and
“route exclusion unit …” in claims 4 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “a route exclusion unit that removes assignment of a first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle after the self-driving vehicle completes travelling along the first guidance route”, however, Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the art how the respective limitation is implemented (i.e. performed, executed, etc.), and therefore claim 4 is rejected under this section. Paragraphs [0100] of the specification states, “In S35, when the self-driving vehicle 18 completes the traveling along the set guidance route, the route exclusion unit 47C releases the guidance route. That is, the route exclusion unit 47C identifies, among all of the paths in the parking lot, partial portion of the guidance route, which has been traveled by the self-driving vehicle 18, based on the current position of the self-driving vehicle 18, and excludes the identified portion from the guidance route. More specifically, for the identified portion of the path in the parking lot, the route exclusion unit 47C changes the setting, in the map information, from the unavailable state to the available state. The identified portion of the path is the portion that has been traveled by the self-driving vehicle 18. As a result, the portion, which the self-driving vehicle 18 has already traveled, can be used as a guidance route for a subsequent self-driving vehicle 18.” However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding the claimed “assignment” and further how “a route exclusion unit that removes assignment of a first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle after the self-driving vehicle completes travelling along the first guidance route”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “assignment” and further how the term is applied to the claim limitation. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the route exclusion unit specifies, based on the position information, a partial portion of the first guidance route when the respective self-driving vehicle finishes travelling of the partial portion of the first guidance route, and then removes assignment of the partial portion of the first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle”, however, Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the art how the respective limitation is implemented (i.e. performed, executed, etc.), and therefore claim 5 is rejected under this section. Paragraphs [0100] of the specification states, “In S35, when the self-driving vehicle 18 completes the traveling along the set guidance route, the route exclusion unit 47C releases the guidance route. That is, the route exclusion unit 47C identifies, among all of the paths in the parking lot, partial portion of the guidance route, which has been traveled by the self-driving vehicle 18, based on the current position of the self-driving vehicle 18, and excludes the identified portion from the guidance route. More specifically, for the identified portion of the path in the parking lot, the route exclusion unit 47C changes the setting, in the map information, from the unavailable state to the available state. The identified portion of the path is the portion that has been traveled by the self-driving vehicle 18. As a result, the portion, which the self-driving vehicle 18 has already traveled, can be used as a guidance route for a subsequent self-driving vehicle 18.” However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding the claimed “assignment” and further how to applied the claimed limitation to “removes assignment of the partial portion of the first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “assignment” and further how the term is applied to the claim limitation. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant provides the claimed limitation “a route exclusion unit that removes assignment of a first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle after the self-driving vehicle completes travelling along the first guidance route”, however, based on currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “assignment” and further how the claimed “assignment” is applied, and therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. The examiner interprets the claimed limitation based on paragraph [0100] of the specification for further examination.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant provides the claimed limitation, “wherein the route exclusion unit specifies, based on the position information, a partial portion of the first guidance route when the respective self-driving vehicle finishes travelling of the partial portion of the first guidance route, and then removes assignment of the partial portion of the first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle”, however, based on currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “assignment” and further how the claimed “assignment” is applied, and therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. The examiner interprets the claimed limitation based on paragraph [0100] of the specification for further examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 20200312144 A1, hereinafter “Noguchi”), and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20140350831 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Noguchi discloses:
A parking assist apparatus assisting self-driving vehicle parking (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 1-3, par. [0059], a parking lot management device 400 assisting a vehicle parking), the parking assist apparatus comprising: at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the parking assist apparatus to implement (Noguchi, see at least par. [0060, 0143]):
A parking assist method executed by a parking assist apparatus that assists self-driving vehicle parking (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 1-3, 5, 7, par. [0006-0008, 0059] a management method executed by parking lot management device 400 assisting an autonomous vehicle M/C1/C2 parking), the parking assist method comprising:
A parking assist apparatus assisting self-driving vehicle parking, the parking assist apparatus comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory tangible storage medium storing instruction to be executed by the processor (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0143], “A management device includes a storage device that stores a program and a hardware processor, and when the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device”), the instructions including:
a route generation unit generating guidance routes including a guidance route for each of a plurality of self-driving vehicles existing in a parking lot (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 4, 5, 7, par. [0007, 0075-0076], a route generator 421 is configured to generate route for each of a plurality of self-driving vehicles C1/C2 existing in a parking lot), the guidance routes being routes from a current position of each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles positioned in an entrance room within the parking lot to a parking space in the parking lot for the plurality of self-driving vehicles (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 1-3, par. [0070-0072, 0075-0076], “The host vehicle M travels to the stop area 310 by passing through the gate 300-in by manual driving or automatic driving. The stop area 310 faces a boarding area 320 connected to the visited facility. The boarding area 320 is provided with an eave for avoiding rain and snow. After an occupant gets off in the stop area 310, the host vehicle M starts the self-propelled parking event of performing unmanned automatic driving to move to a parking space PS in a parking lot PA”), and each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles being capable of executing autonomous driving from the entrance room to the parking space along a plurality of paths provided in the parking lot (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 1-3, par. [0007, 0039], “…a vehicle capable of automatically traveling …”; par. [0071], “After an occupant gets off in the stop area 310, the host vehicle M starts the self-propelled parking event of performing unmanned automatic driving to move to a parking space PS in a parking lot PA”); and
a route transmission unit transmitting the guidance route to the respective self-driving vehicle when the guidance route is generated for the respective self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0073-0076], “When the communicator 410 receives a parking request from a vehicle, the route generator 421 extracts a parking space PS in an empty state with reference to the parking space state table 432, acquires a position of the extracted parking space PS from the parking lot map information 431, generates a preferred route to the acquired position of the parking space PS, and transmits information indicating the generated route to the vehicle by using the communicator 410”), wherein:
the parking assist apparatus is configured to support parking of a self-driving vehicle by parking the self-driving vehicle in the parking space provided in the parking lot by autonomous driving upon receiving a parking request from a user (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3-4, par. [0071, 0076], “When the communicator 410 receives a parking request from a vehicle, the route generator 421 extracts a parking space PS in an empty state with reference to the parking space state table 432, acquires a position of the extracted parking space PS from the parking lot map information 431, generates a preferred route to the acquired position of the parking space PS, and transmits information indicating the generated route to the vehicle by using the communicator 410”), the parking lot includes a plurality of parking spaces (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3, 5, 7, par. [0086], a plurality of parking space PS in the parking lot PA) and a plurality of paths provided in the parking lot (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3, 5, 7, par. [0086], a plurality of passages connect to nodes in the parking lot), the plurality of paths being distinguished from the plurality of parking spaces (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3, 5, 7, par. [0086], the plurality of passages being distinguished from the plurality of parking spaces PS),
in a case where the plurality of self-driving vehicles in the parking lot includes a different self-driving vehicle and a target self-driving vehicle and a guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle has been generated by the route generation unit (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 5-7, vehicle C1 and vehicle C2, and a guidance route R12 has been generated for the vehicle C1):
the route generation unit reads the guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0091, 0099], the parking lot management device 400 is configured to read the guidance route R11/R12 of the first vehicle C1 stored in a storage 430) to generate a guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle C2 based on the guidance route of the different self-driving vehicle C1 (Noguchi, see at least par. [0099]).
Noguchi fails to explicitly teach the guidance routes being generated so as not to overlap with one another, in setting the guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle, sets, among the plurality of paths provided in the parking lot, a path used in the guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle as an unavailable path; the route generation unit generates a guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle based on an available path among the plurality of paths provided in the parking lot; when the route generation unit fails to generate the guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle to the parking space by using only the available path, the route generation unit waits for a predetermined period of time, and then retries generating the guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle by re-reading the guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle and re-generating the guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle using the available path after the re-reading; and the unavailable path corresponding to the guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle is changed into an available path after the different self-driving vehicle passes through the path used in the guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle.
Hoffman teaches a method and management device, the management device 15 is configured to generate guidance routes for a plurality of mobile drive units 200, i.e., a node-to-node path connected by edges/segments 17a-17h corresponding to a moving path from a current location to a chosen destination, e.g., a location to park (Hoffman, see at least Figs. 3, 4A, 5, par. [0016, 0038, 0049, 0053, 0059]); the management device 15 is configured to reserve a moving path of a first mobile drive unit that comprises a plurality of segments 17 by setting the plurality of segments 17 unavailable (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0047, 0051, 0052, 0056, 0057, 0058]); the management device 15 is configured to generate a moving path for a second mobile unit by using the available segments, i.e., checking whether request to reserve segments for planning path of the second mobile unit intersects with the reserved segments of the first mobile unit (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 6B, par. [0079-0081]); when the requested segments intersects with a reservation, the management device 15 is configured to wait for a predetermined amount of time and attempt to reserve the segments again before determining a new path (Hoffman, see at least par. [0081]), the management device 15 is configured to re-generate a new path for the second mobile unit by re-read the moving path of the first mobile unit and determine a new path for the second mobile unit (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 6B, par. [0079], “Second mobile drive unit 22 may request a path 16 from management module 15 and, at step 632, route planning module 108 determines a path 16 for the second mobile drive unit 22. In some embodiments, path 16 planned for the second mobile drive unit 22 may depend on the other path 16 planned for the first mobile drive unit 20. Additionally or alternatively, the set of reservations in workspace 74 may change from the time the first path 16 is planned for the first mobile drive unit 20 to the time the second path 16 is planned for the second mobile drive unit 22. The planned path 16 may change accordingly. The available paths 16 may also vary according to the physical dimensions of mobile drive unit 22, which may prevent the second mobile drive unit 22 from taking the same routes as a given mobile drive unit 20”); and the unavailable path corresponding to the guidance route for the first mobile unit is changed into an available path after the first mobile unit passes through the path used in the guidance route for the first mobile unit (Hoffman, see at least par. [0058], “As that mobile drive unit 20 or 22 progresses along segments 17, the mobile drive unit 20 or 22 behind it may be given new portions of the originally requested segment 17 as those portions become available due to the evacuation of the leading mobile drive unit 20 or 22”).
In view of Hoffman’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device and method as taught by Noguchi, so that guidance routes being generated not to overlap with one another by reserving a section of moving path that a vehicle occupies and will occupy to prevent other vehicle from entering the reserved section of moving path of the vehicle. This modification would allow to prevent collision between vehicles in the parking lot.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: when the route generation unit cancels the generation of the guidance route for one of the plurality of self-driving vehicles, the route generation unit generates the guidance route for the one of the plurality of self-driving vehicles again after an elapse of a predetermined period (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 6B, par. [0081], “If, however, the requested segment intersects with a temporary reservation, space reservation module 110 may wait a predetermined amount of time and attempt to reserve the segment again”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor are further configured to cause the parking assist apparatus to implement: a route exclusion unit that removes assignment of a first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle after the self-driving vehicle completes travelling along the first guidance route (Hoffman, see at least Figs. 6A, 6B, par. [0076], when the mobile drive unit reaches the destination, the mobile drive unit transmits information to management module 15 indicating the assigned task is complete; par. [0058], “As that mobile drive unit 20 or 22 progresses along segments 17, the mobile drive unit 20 or 22 behind it may be given new portions of the originally requested segment 17 as those portions become available due to the evacuation of the leading mobile drive unit 20 or 22”); wherein when the route generation unit fails to generate a second guidance route to not overlap with the first guidance route, the route generation unit tries to generate the second guidance route again (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 6B, par. [0081], “If either the requested reservation conflicts with a reservation policy or the requested segment has already been reserved, then the method may return to step 632 and space reservation module 110 determines a new path for second mobile drive unit 22”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor are further configured to cause the parking assist apparatus to implement: a position acquisition unit periodically acquiring position information of each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles at a predetermined time interval (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0047, 0053-0055, 0057]); wherein the route exclusion unit specifies, based on the position information, a partial portion of the first guidance route when the respective self-driving vehicle finishes travelling of the partial portion of the first guidance route, and then removes assignment of the partial portion of the first guidance route to the self-driving vehicle (Hoffman, see at least par. [0065], “For example, management module 15 may monitor the location and current path of mobile drive units 20 and/or 22 and may reserve appropriate segments 17 on behalf of mobile drive units 20 and/or 22 at appropriate times during the movement of mobile drive units 20”; par. [0058], “As that mobile drive unit 20 or 22 progresses along segments 17, the mobile drive unit 20 or 22 behind it may be given new portions of the originally requested segment 17 as those portions become available due to the evacuation of the leading mobile drive unit 20 or 22”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: the route generation unit sets, in map information indicating positions of a plurality of paths provided in the parking lot (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0073, 0075], “The parking lot map information 431 is information that geometrically represents the structure of the parking lot PA”; par. [0086], “In the parking lot PA, parking spaces are regularly partitioned and passages are straight in most cases”; Hoffman, see at least par. [0048], “In some embodiments, workspace 74 may additionally or alternatively be associated with a two-dimensional floor layout and/or map of workspace 74. In some embodiments, workspace 74 may be represented in two-dimensional space by a grid of workspace cells 76”), each path being included in a first guidance route, to as an unavailable path (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0051, 0057], the management device 15 is configured to associate a reservation status with various space within inventory management system 10, e.g., reservation status of segments of a guidance route 16a in two-dimensional representations of the workspace 74).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: the plurality of self-driving vehicles include a first self-driving vehicle and a second self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 5, 7, vehicle C1 and vehicle C2); the route generation unit generate a guidance route for the first self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0084], the parking lot management device is configured to generate guidance route R12 for vehicle C1 traveling toward the parking space PS1); and when the second self-driving vehicle requests a parking assist after the guidance route for the first self-driving vehicle has been generated, the guidance route for the first self-driving vehicle is not changed (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 7, par. [0084. 0099, 0100], the parking lot management device is configured to generate guidance route for vehicle C2 based on the guidance route R12 of the vehicle C1 to avoid an obstacle).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches further comprising: a memory that stores map information of the parking lot, the map information including a plurality of paths provided in the parking lot (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0073, 0075], “The storage 430 stores information such as parking lot map information 431, a parking space state table 432”); wherein the map information stored in the memory includes availability information for each path, the availability information indicating whether a path is available for inclusion in a guidance route for a self-driving vehicle (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0035], the management device 15 comprises memory 15; Fig. 5, par. [0051, 0057], the management device 15 is configured to associate a reservation status with various space within inventory management system 10, e.g., reservation status of segments of a guidance route 16a in two-dimensional representations of the workspace 74).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: when a guidance route to be generated for a target self-driving vehicle among the plurality of self-driving vehicles overlaps with a guidance route that has already been generated for another self-driving vehicle, the route generation unit postpones generation of the guidance route for the self-driving vehicle (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 6B, par. [0081], “At step 636, space reservation module 110 may determine whether the reservation request conflicts with a reservation policy. For example, reservation policies may include any of the policies discussed above. If the requested segment does not conflict with a reservation policy, the method may determine at step 638 whether the requested segment intersects with a reserved space. If either the requested reservation conflicts with a reservation policy or the requested segment has already been reserved, then the method may return to step 632 and space reservation module 110 determines a new path for second mobile drive unit 22”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches further comprising: a memory configured to store map information regarding inside of the parking lot (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0073, 0075], “The storage 430 stores information such as parking lot map information 431, a parking space state table 432”; Hoffman, see at least Fig. 3, the management device 15 comprises memory 102; par. [0048], “In some embodiments, workspace 74 may additionally or alternatively be associated with a two-dimensional floor layout and/or map of workspace 74. In some embodiments, workspace 74 may be represented in two-dimensional space by a grid of workspace cells 76”), wherein the parking assist apparatus receives real-time location information of each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles (Noguchi, see at least par. [0047]) and surrounding information representing a situation around each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles from the plurality of self-driving vehicles within the parking lot (Noguchi, see at least par. [0053]), and updates availability information for each path in the parking lot based on the received information (Hoffman, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0051, 0057], the management device 15 is configured to associate a reservation status with various space within inventory management system 10, e.g., reservation status of segments of a guidance route 16a in two-dimensional representations of the workspace 74).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: the parking lot includes a plurality of intersections (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0052], parking lot PA includes a plurality of intersections); and the plurality of paths include roads connecting the plurality of intersections (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: each guidance route for a self-driving vehicle is a route provided by combining and connecting a plurality of paths among the plurality of paths provided in the parking lot from the entrance room to the parking space for the self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3, 4, par. [0071-0072, 0076]; Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3, 7a-b, par. [0062], “The first vehicle 102c travels through the first management section 500a, the second management section 500b, and the third management section 500c in this order, and the travel route toward the destination 500g is shown”); and each path among the plurality of paths provided in the parking lot that has been included in the guidance route for the different self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3, 4, par. [0071-0072, 0076]) and is set as an unavailable path for the guidance route for the target self-driving vehicle is sequentially changed to an available path for the target self-driving vehicle as the different self-driving vehicle passes through the path (Hoffman, see at least par. [0058], “As that mobile drive unit 20 or 22 progresses along segments 17, the mobile drive unit 20 or 22 behind it may be given new portions of the originally requested segment 17 as those portions become available due to the evacuation of the leading mobile drive unit 20 or 22”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 20200312144 A1, hereinafter “Noguchi”), in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20140350831 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogita et al. (JP2019036057A, hereinafter “Ogita”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: the parking lot includes an alighting area where the user alights from each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0070], stop area 310), a parking area where each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles is parked (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 3, parking lot PA), and a boarding area where the user boards on each of the plurality of self-driving vehicles (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0070], boarding area 320); and the route transmission unit transmits the generated guidance route to that self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0073-0074, 0076]).
The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman fails to explicitly teach before one of the plurality of self-driving vehicles starts to move from the alighting area to the parking area by autonomous driving, the route generation unit generates a guidance route for self-driving vehicle so as not overlap with the guidance route for each of the other remaining self-driving vehicles.
Ogita teaches before one of the plurality of self-driving vehicles 71/81 starts to move from the alighting area 91 to the parking area by the self-driving vehicles 71/81 (Ogita, see at least Figs. 3, 8), the server device 1 is configured to check whether all or part of the route and schedule of the autonomous vehicle 81 overlaps with all or part of the route and schedule of the autonomous vehicle 71 that has a higher priority than the autonomous vehicle 81 (as described in Fig. 5, a conflict in section 61) and to regenerate the guidance route and schedule of the autonomous vehicle 81 not overlap with the route and schedule of the autonomous vehicle 71 (Ogita, see at least Figs. 2, 8, par. [0035-0036, 0041, 0044]).
In view of Ogita’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by combination of Noguchi and Hoffman, before one of the plurality of self-driving vehicles starts to move from the parking area to the boarding area by autonomous driving, the route generation unit generates a guidance route for that self-driving vehicle so as not to overlap with the guidance route of each of the other self-driving vehicles; the route transmission unit transmits the generated guidance route to that self-driving vehicle. This modification would allow to prevent collision between vehicles in the parking lot.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Noguchi, Hoffman, and Ogita teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. The combination of Noguchi, Hoffman, and Ogita further teaches wherein: before one of the plurality of self-driving vehicles starts to move from the parking area to the boarding area by autonomous driving, the route generation unit generates a guidance route for that self-driving vehicle so as not to overlap with the guidance route of each of the other self-driving vehicles (Ogita, see at least Figs. 3, 5, 8, par. [0035-0036, 0041], the server device 1 is configured to check whether all or part of the route and schedule of the autonomous vehicle 81 overlaps with all or part of the route and schedule of the autonomous vehicle 71 that has a higher priority than the autonomous vehicle 81); the route transmission unit transmits the generated guidance route to that self-driving vehicle (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0073-0074, 0076]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 20200312144 A1, hereinafter “Noguchi”), in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20140350831 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamoshita (JP2019074772A).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Noguchi and Hoffman teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman further teaches wherein: the route generation unit is configured to, in response to the parking request from the user, determine a target parking space from among the plurality of parking spaces provided in the parking lot, and generate the guidance route to the target parking space (Noguchi, see at least Figs. 3-4, par. [0071, 0076], when a request for automatic parking is received from the user of the host vehicle M using the terminal device, the parking lot management device 400 is configured to extract a parking space PS in an empty state with reference to the parking space state table 432, acquires a position of the extracted parking space PS from the parking lot map information 431, generates a preferred route to the acquired position of the parking space PS), and the route generation unit preferentially selects a parking space (Noguchi, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0075-0076], the parking lot management device 400 is configured to select a parking space in an empty state).
The combination of Noguchi and Hoffman fails to explicitly teach the route generation unit preferentially selects a parking space that is closer to the entrance room as the target parking space, or preferentially selects a parking space that is closer to an exit room as the target parking space.
Kamoshita teaches a parking management system and a control method for managing vehicle parking in a parking lot for automobiles. Kamoshita further teaches to select a parking space closest to the exit when there are multiple vacant parking spaces (Kamoshita, see at least par. [0029]).
In view of Kamoshita’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by combination of Noguchi and Hoffman, the route generation unit preferentially selects a parking space that is closer to the entrance room as the target parking space, or preferentially selects a parking space that is closer to an exit room as the target parking space. This modification would allow to identify a suitable destination when there are multiple available parking spaces.
Conclusion
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 TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights