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 (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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 are now pending.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application DE10 2021 214 057.2 filed 12/09/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of the application is 12/09/2021.
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, 6, and 7 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.
The term “within a proximity of” in claims 1, 6, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “within a proximity of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are further 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. As currently drafted, the “first base unit implemented as an edge device situated within the parking facility and communicatively linked to the parking facility management system,” under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be interpreted as installed within the “motor vehicle driven in an at least semi-automated manner within the parking facility.” As understood in light of applicant’s drawings and specification, the “base units” as seen in Figure 1 (item 117) appear to be stationary and installed within the parking facility and not within a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Mielenz et al. (US 20170351267 A1), hereinafter Mielenz discloses: “A method for automatically transporting a vehicle from a transfer zone to an assigned parking space within a predefined parking facility with the aid of a parking facility monitoring system including at least one stationary sensor unit, and pieces of information about the present vehicle position being transmitted to a central control unit. Certain areas of the parking facility are monitored by the sensor units with high accuracy, and other areas of the parking facility are monitored by the sensor units with lesser accuracy, overlapping areas of trajectories of other vehicles with a trajectory being determined by the central control unit, and the trajectory being adapted in such a way that an overlapping area ends up in an area of the parking facility which is monitored by the sensor units with high accuracy.”
Regarding claim 1, Mielenz, taken either singly or in combination with other prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, suggest, and/or render obvious, individually or in combination the limitations in combination of claim 1.
Other prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, suggest, and/or render obvious, individually or in combination the limitations in combination of independent claim 1 as a whole.
In particular, neither Mielenz nor other prior art of record teaches the limitation: “a first base unit implemented as an edge device situated within the parking facility and communicatively linked to the parking facility management system, the first base unit being connected to surroundings sensors situated within the parking facility in surroundings of the first base unit detecting a first area of the parking facility, the first base unit being configured to ascertain first infrastructure assistance data for the infrastructure-based assistance of the motor vehicle driven in an at least semi-automated manner within the parking facility based on surroundings sensor data of the surroundings sensors representing the detected first area and based on the planning data, wherein the first base unit is connected to a subset of the surroundings sensors located within a proximity of the first base unit, and wherein the first base unit is configured to receive the planning data from the parking facility management system and ascertain the first infrastructure assistance data locally based on the surroundings sensor data and the received planning data;”
As such, claim 1 is considered novel and non-obvious and is therefore allowed.
Claims 2-5 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 1. Therefore, these claims are also considered potentially allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Independent claims 6 and 7 are considered potentially allowable for similar reasons to claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner notes that attempts to contact applicant’s representative to propose an examiner’s amendment to overcome the above 35 USC 112(b) rejections were unsuccessful.
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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658