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 .
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) 1-2, 8-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 111540235 A) in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0008515 A1).
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (CN 111540235 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0008515 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Wei discloses a computer-implemented method (e.g. Abstract) and a computer system (e.g. Abstract) comprising:
Selecting a roadway to identify a parking space (e.g. Fig. 1), wherein the selecting is based on preventing a congestion rate from rising above a congestion threshold based on a car parking on the roadway (e.g. p. 2: road traffic density is less than or equal to the preset lowest traffic density critical value);
determine a plurality of parking spaces on a roadway (e.g. Fig. 1: parking space # 1-30; p. 2: marking all the unused road side parking space as available state) within a pre-defined geographic location (e.g. p. 2: markets, traffic stations, schools and other densely populated areas),
wherein the plurality of parking spaces are available parking spaces on a side of the roadway in a lane of the roadway used for traffic flow (e.g. Fig. 1 & p. 2),
the roadway has two or more lanes for traffic flow in a direction (e.g. Fig. 1), and
the roadway has the congestion below a congestion threshold (e.g. p. 2: road traffic density is less than or equal to the preset lowest traffic density critical value).
Wei fails to disclose, but Seo teaches:
a computer program product (e.g. [0062]), comprising:
one or more computer processors (e.g. Figs. 2-3); one or more computer readable storage media (e.g. [0062]); and
program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors (e.g. [0062]),
the stored program instructions comprising:
program instructions to determine a plurality of autonomous vehicles to be parked within the pre-defined geographic location; and
program instructions to allocate a selected parking space from the plurality of parking spaces to an autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (e.g. [0018, 0056, 0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wei with the teachings of Seo to provide available parking spaces information to an autonomous parking system so as to park vehicles on the side of a road when the road is in a low traffic density. The modification would simply increase the available parking options to user with consideration of the road traffic density.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Seo teaches:
program instructions to instruct the autonomous vehicle to set a travel route from a current location to the selected parking space; and program instructions to instruct the autonomous vehicle to depart on the travel route to the selected parking space (e.g. Figs. 5-8: S250-S280 & [0011-0013, 0069]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Seo teaches, wherein the program instructions to allocate the selected parking space from the plurality of parking spaces to the autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles further (e.g. [0056, 0068]) comprise:
program instructions to request information for the selected parking space from a parking space database (e.g. [0083]);
program instructions to generate a list of the plurality of autonomous vehicles with the request to be parked based, at least in part on a proximal location of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to the selected parking space (e.g. Fig. 5: S210-1, S210-2 & [0056]: request from a party of autonomous vehicles are generated and received when they entered the parking lot, i.e. proximal location); and
program instructions to query a vehicle service database (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0068]: parking lot server to provide parking lot information and assign parking lots for the party of vehicles) for the autonomous vehicle with a request to be parked.
Regarding claim 18, Seo teaches program instructions to instruct the autonomous vehicle to set a travel route from a current location to the selected parking space; and program instructions to instruct the autonomous vehicle to depart on the travel route the selected parking space (e.g. Figs. 5-8: S250-S280 & [0011-0013, 0069]).
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 111540235 A) in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0008515 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2020/0361451 A1) and Shaik (US 2016/0125736 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Wei and Seo in combination fails to disclose, but Noguchi teaches:
program instructions to, responsive to the autonomous vehicle arriving at the selected parking space, determine an inter-vehicle distance information and geographical dimension information (e.g. [0093]: parking frame) for the selected parking space, wherein the inter-vehicle distance is a distance between two parked vehicles (e.g. Fig. 10: DD2); program instructions to, responsive to a determination that an inter-vehicle distance from a center position of the selected parking space exceeds an exterior dimension of the autonomous vehicle (e.g. [0090]), instruct the autonomous vehicle to locate to the center position of the selected parking space (e.g. [0093]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wei and Seo with the teachings of Noguchi to locate an autonomous vehicle in a center position of a parking space so as to accurately position the autonomous vehicle within the selected parking space.
Shaik further teaches program instructions to instruct the autonomous vehicle at the center position of the selected parking space to transmit vehicle service information to a parking manager (e.g. [0032]), wherein the vehicle service information includes a state of vehicle location and the selected parking space (e.g. Figs. 1 & 4 & [0041]: vehicle provides status identifier information corresponds to occupancy of the parking space).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Seo with the teachings of Shaik to update parking space status based on information from a parking/parked vehicle so as to accurately determine occupancy of the parking facility.
Claim(s) 4-6, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 111540235 A) in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0008515 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Chen (US 11,455,887 B1).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Wei and Seo in combination fails to disclose, but Chen teaches the program instructions to determine the plurality of parking spaces on the roadway further comprise:
program instructions to determine whether there are one or more existing available parking spaces on the roadway;
program instructions to, responsive to a determination that there are one or more existing available parking spaces on the roadway, predict a rate of congestion by considering the one or more existing available parking spaces and associated travel history data; and
program instructions to, responsive to a determination that the rate of congestion is below an acceptable congestion threshold, flag the one or more existing available parking spaces for allocation (e.g. Figs. 2-7 & col 5 line 3 – col 8 line 21: based on historical traffic and time of the day to determine probability or level of certainty that a vacant parking spot will be available, and driver can request vacant parking spot with specified level of certainty).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wei and Seo with the teachings of Chen to recommend a parking spot based on traffic and historical information so as to increase the chances of finding a vacant parking spot for a vehicle.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Chen teaches program instructions to, responsive to a determination that there are no existing available parking spaces on the roadway, determine a new parking space (e.g. Abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Chen teaches, wherein the program instructions to determine the new parking space further comprise:
program instructions to determine a cluster of distribution points based, at least in part, on a location of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to be parked within the pre-defined geographic location;
program instructions to determine a centroid of the cluster of distribution points;
program instructions to generate a list of candidate roadways within a pre-determined proximity to the centroid;
program instructions to select a new roadway from the list of candidate roadways; and
program instructions to select the new parking space on the new roadway based, at least in part, on the rate of congestion (e.g. Figs. 2-7 & col 5 line 3 – col 8 line 21).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 111540235 A) in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0008515 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Sham (US 2017/0144654 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Seo teaches program instructions to generate a list of the plurality of autonomous vehicles requesting to be parked that have not received an allocation for the selected parking space (e.g. Figs. 5-8: S250-S280 & [0011-0013, 0069]).
Wei and Seo in combination fails to disclose, but Sham teaches the program instructions to determine the plurality of autonomous vehicles to be parked within the pre-defined geographic location further comprise:
program instructions to retrieve a plurality of user profiles and one or more user preferences from a vehicle service database to identify a plurality of autonomous vehicles requesting a parking space (e.g. [0048]); and
program instructions to select the autonomous vehicle from the list of the plurality of autonomous vehicles requesting to be parked that has not received the allocation for the selected parking space based, at least in part, on historical information of prior parking requests, vehicle service information for the autonomous vehicle, and a proximity of the autonomous vehicle to the selected parking space (e.g. [0041, 0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wei and Seo with the teachings of Sham to request user profile to identify the autonomous vehicle so as to assign a parking space based on preference of the user of the autonomous vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights