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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 been fully considered but are found to be unpersuasive at this time. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are maintained accordingly.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of 2A. However; Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed feature(s) recite a method of organizing human activity, as discussed in the 101 section above, and furthermore as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application. There lacks convincing arguments precluding a human from performing the feature(s) of claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, through a process for managing relationships or interactions between people, providing navigating/guiding a driver of a vehicle, and further wherein navigational information cover performance of limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper (i.e., assessing traffic, parking and navigation variables), and therefore recite mental processes. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible under step 2B because the limitations recite an inventive concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees as linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, in this case the field of automotive navigation, or the mere automation of a manual process, as discussed above, does not provide significantly more to an inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are found to be unpersuasive at this time. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections are maintained accordingly.
Applicant argues that Wakayama fails to disclose or select selecting “a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane” or “notify the vehicle of the second parking lot and guide the vehicle to the second parking lot.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees;
Wakayama discloses a system, [FIG.5] 2c 3b, wherein a vehicle travels along a road and is directed to a parking lot along a same side of a road as travel. Furthermore, nothing precludes Wakayama from directing a vehicle from entering a parking lot on either side of a street and is therefore is enabled/can guide a vehicle to enter a location without crossing an opposite lane. Additionally, Wakayama discloses wherein [0118] The determination of whether it is suitable to guide the vehicle 1 to a second specific location different from a first specific location is based on, for example, whether a service can now be received immediately at the second specific location, and whether the travel distance from the current position to the second specific location is shorter than that to the first specific location. For more information, please see the rejection in re claim(s) 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-17 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, which are emphasized (bolded) below.
In re [Claim 1] (Currently Amended) A parking lot guidance apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether or not a road near an entrance of a first parking lot for which the vehicle is heading is congested based on sensor information output by a sensor;
select, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot, a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane, as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided when it is determined determines that the road is congested; and
notify the vehicle of the second parking lot and
guide the vehicle to the second parking lot
In re [Claim 11] (Currently Amended) A parking lot guidance system comprising:
a sensor configured to output sensor information; and
the parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1 (see above);
which incorporates the entirety of claim 1, also recites analogous abstract limitations.
In re [Claim 16] (Original) A parking lot guidance method comprising:
determining whether or not a road near an entrance of a first parking lot for which the vehicle is heading is congested based on sensor information output by a sensor;
selecting, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot, a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane, as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided when it is determined that the road is congested; and
notifying the vehicle of the second parking lot and
guiding the vehicle to the second parking lot
In re [Claim 17] (Original) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing of:
determining whether or not a road near an entrance of a first parking lot for which the vehicle is heading is congested based on sensor information output by a sensor;
selecting, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot, a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane, as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided when it is determined that the road is congested; and
notifying the vehicle of the second parking lot and
guiding the vehicle to the second parking lot
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a process for managing relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; i.e., assessing options and providing instructions) and are therefore a method of organizing human activity. More specifically, other than the recitation of a “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the abstract steps recited above from practically being performed by a human. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and/or alternatively, the selecting limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper (i.e., assessing traffic, parking and navigation variables), and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, as there is no recitation of a processing structure (i.e. processor, etc.), nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim recites additional elements of: which are emphasized (underlined) below.
In re [Claim 1] (Currently Amended) A parking lot guidance apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether or not a road near an entrance of a first parking lot for which the vehicle is heading is congested based on sensor information output by a sensor;
select, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot, a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane, as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided when it is determined determines that the road is congested; and
notify the vehicle of the second parking lot and
guide the vehicle to the second parking lot
In re [Claim 11] (Currently Amended) A parking lot guidance system comprising:
a sensor configured to output sensor information; and
the parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1 (see above);
which incorporates the entirety of claim 1, also recites analogous abstract limitations.
In re [Claim 16] (Original) A parking lot guidance method comprising:
determining whether or not a road near an entrance of a first parking lot for which the vehicle is heading is congested based on sensor information output by a sensor;
selecting, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot, a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane, as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided when it is determined that the road is congested; and
notifying the vehicle of the second parking lot and
guiding the vehicle to the second parking lot
In re [Claim 17] (Original) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing of:
determining whether or not a road near an entrance of a first parking lot for which the vehicle is heading is congested based on sensor information output by a sensor;
selecting, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot, a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane, as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided when it is determined that the road is congested; and
notifying the vehicle of the second parking lot and
guiding the vehicle to the second parking lot
The characterization of a memory storing instructions, a processor configured to execute instructions, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). In addition, the functions of the computing elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The characterization of the sensor configured to output sensor information, at this level of breath, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally and/or alternatively the recitation of the sensor structure amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Though not positively recited, the collection and transmission of sensor data merely amounts to extra-solution activity and at this level of breath would merely act to apply the function of data gathering.
The function of the notifying the vehicle of the second parking lot, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. post-solution activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the aforementioned functions of a memory storing instructions, a processor configured to execute instructions, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing and sensor(s), use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). As indicated above, these elements also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As indicated above, the characterization of the sensor configured to output sensor information, at this level of breath, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, though not positively recited, the collection and transmission of sensor data merely amounts to extra-solution activity and at this level of breath would merely act to apply the function of data gathering. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Additionally, with respect to the notifying step(s), the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
With respect to the functions of the claimed elements above, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2, 6-8, 10, and 12-14 recite abstract ideas (e.g., mental processes such as a route to bypass a road; methods of organizing human activity such as issuing a ticket) and further recite the functions of displaying abstract information (presenting a vehicle with a route), the transmission of information (e.g., sending data to a vehicle via wireless communication), which are extra-solution activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The characterization of the on-road equipment as the mechanism for sending and receiving merely indicates a field of use. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3-5, and 13 recite mental process (e.g., selecting parking lots based on parameters) without any further recitation of additional elements. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claim(s), this additional element does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or mount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9 recites a mental process and/or a method for organizing human activity (detecting a vehicle approach) without reciting any further additional elements. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claim(s), this additional element does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or mount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 10 and 15 further characteries the sensor as an imagining apparatus, which merely amounts to apply it and/or field of use at this level of breadth, and further characterizes functions of the computing device (sending/receiving/processing information), which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The characterization of the on-road equipment as the mechanism for sending and receiving merely indicates a field of use. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1).
In re [Claim 1] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses A parking lot guidance ([0112] the navigation device 100 according to the first exemplary embodiment of the present invention can determine as appropriate a moving route by selecting from a plurality of service providing sites in view of the circumstances in which the vehicle 1 is or is not allowed to wait. As a result, the user of the navigation device 100 can efficiently receive a predetermined service (e.g., vehicle parking service).) apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions ([0054, 0237-238] The storage unit 106 temporarily or permanently holds the information necessary for performing processes in the navigation device 100…Alternatively, the storage unit 106 may be composed of, for example, a digital versatile disk (DVD) or dynamic random access memory (DRAM).); and
a processor ([0236] The term “computer system” as used herein includes an operating system (OS) and hardware such as peripheral devices.) configured to execute the instructions ([claim 10; 0026] A storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the processes) to:
determine whether or not a road ([0051] the state information obtaining unit 104 can also obtain, for example, …the degree of congestion on a street near the first location, and the number of vehicles waiting at the first location.) near an entrance of a first parking lot ([0010] In the example of parking lots, it is a well-known fact that a once available parking lot may become full, or conversely a once full parking lot may become available, while the user is moving toward the destination. Thus, reflecting changes in the circumstances over time in navigation guidance would achieve more accurate guidance.) for which a vehicle is heading [FIG.2] is congested based on sensor information output ([0051] As the first location state information, the state information obtaining unit 104 can obtain, for example, a time interval between vehicle entries into, or departures from, the first location and the time when a vehicle enters or leaves the first location… the day of a week when a vehicle enters or leaves the first location, the degree of congestion on a street near the first location, and the number of vehicles waiting at the first location. The time interval between vehicle entries into the first location means an average time from entry of a vehicle into the first location to entry of the following vehicle into the first location. The time interval between departures from the first location means an average time from departure of a vehicle from the first location to departure of the following vehicle from the first location...) by a sensor (state information obtaining unit 104);
select, from among one or more parking lots different from the first parking lot ([FIG.2] 2a-2d, 3a-3b), a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without crossing an opposite lane ([FIG.5] arrow pointing upward along right hand side along with parking lot 2c), as a second parking lot to which the vehicle is to be guided ([0086] Next, the route setting unit 105 sets a route so that the vehicle will pass through at least one of the candidates for the parking lot and on-street parking lot that can be set on a moving route. In the example above, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route so that the vehicle will pass through at least one of the parking lot 2 c and on- street parking lots 3 a and 3 b that have been extracted.) when it is determined determines that the road is congested ([0053, 0073-75, 0082-84] …A parking lot or an on-street parking lot whose nearby streets are not crowded and whose “degree of congestion” is “available”… However, there is no parking lot or on-street parking lot whose “degree of congestion” is “available”. Thus, the route setting unit 105 determines that no parking lot or on-street parking lot satisfying the condition (A) is included in the first and second locations….); and
notify the vehicle ([0055] presenting unit 107) of the second parking lot ([0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.) and
guide the vehicle to the second parking lot [0118] The determination of whether it is suitable to guide the vehicle 1 to a second specific location different from a first specific location is based on, for example, whether a service can now be received immediately at the second specific location, and whether the travel distance from the current position to the second specific location is shorter than that to the first specific location.
In re [Claim 2] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to guide the vehicle to the second parking lot by presenting ([0055] presenting unit 107) the vehicle with a route to bypass the road near the entrance of the first parking lot ([0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
In re [Claim 3] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select, from among the one or more parking lots (2a-2d,3a-3b), a parking lot having an entrance at a position along a direction in which the vehicle travels [FIG.2] as the second parking lot ([0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
In re [Claim 4] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select, from among the one or more parking lots (2a-2d,3a-3b), a parking lot having an entrance on a side of a lane (Examiner’s Note: It should be noted that under broadest reasonable interpretation parking services 2-3 depicted within FIG.2 of Wakayama are located on a side of a lane, either left or right) where the vehicle is scheduled to travel as the second parking lot ([FIG.2; 0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
In re [Claim 9] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1, the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect that the vehicle has approached the first parking lot, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select, from among the one or more parking lots ([FIG.2] 2-3) different from the first parking lot, the second parking lot when it is detected that the vehicle has approached the first parking lot and it is determined that the road is congested ([FIG.2; 0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
In re [Claim 11] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses A parking lot guidance system comprising: a sensor configured to output sensor information ([0051] the state information obtaining unit 104 can also obtain, for example, …the degree of congestion on a street near the first location, and the number of vehicles waiting at the first location.); and the parking lot guidance apparatus (the navigation device 100) according to claim 1.
In re [Claim 12] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to guide the vehicle to the second parking lot by presenting the vehicle with a route ([0086] Next, the route setting unit 105 sets a route so that the vehicle will pass through at least one of the candidates for the parking lot and on-street parking lot that can be set on a moving route. In the example above, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route so that the vehicle will pass through at least one of the parking lot 2 c and on- street parking lots 3 a and 3 b that have been extracted.) to bypass the road near the entrance of the first parking lot ([FIG.2; 0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
In re [Claim 16] (Original) The limitations of claim 16 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 1.
In re [Claim 17] (Original) The limitations of claim 17 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 1.
In re [Claim 18] (New) The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not a road near the entrance of the first parking lot is congested ([0051, 0162-0164] As the first location state information, the state information obtaining unit 104 can also obtain, for example, the day of a week when a vehicle enters or leaves the first location, the degree of congestion on a street near the first location, and the number of vehicles waiting at the first location) in a case where the vehicle passes a predetermined checkpoint having a predate
rmined positional relationship with the entrance of the first parking lot ([0070] Note that the first location candidate obtaining unit 102 and the second location candidate obtaining unit 103 obtain the first locations and the second locations, respectively, which are present within a predetermined distance from the current position of the vehicle 1).
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 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Colijn (US-20190179336-A1).
In re [Claim 5] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance apparatus according toclaim1wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select, from among the one or more parking lots (2a-2d,3a-3b), a parking lot where the vehicle can enter as the second parking lot ([FIG.2; 0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
Wakayama lacks the following underlined limitations:
a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without turning around as the second parking lot
Regarding the limitation; Colijn (US-20190179336-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0003] locations of vehicles of a fleet as well as a number of available spaces at each of a plurality of parking locations that may be tracked. A subset of the fleet not already located at one of the plurality of parking locations is identified. At least one assignment assigning each vehicle of the subset to a respective parking location of the plurality of parking locations is determined according to the numbers of available spaces and the identified locations of the subset, [0005; claim(s) 6-7] and for each of the plurality of segments, identifying a number of vehicles of the subset which will traverse the segment, wherein the cost value for the factor of sending the subset to respective assigned parking locations will cause traffic congestion for the at least one assignment is based on the number of vehicles for each of the plurality of segments. Colijn further discloses wherein, ([0084] For instance, it may take vehicles 100A and 100B 2 minutes to reach the assigned parking locations for the first assignment, and 5 minutes to reach the assigned parking locations for the second assignment. The second assignment may be longer because vehicle 100B may be traveling too fast to turn into parking location 280 and may need to make a U-turn or drive around the block to reach parking location 280. These values may each be converted for individual costs for the respective assignments… [0003] determining, by the one or more processors, a total cost for the at least one assignment by determining a cost value for each of a plurality of factors including how quickly the vehicles of the subset are able to reach the respective assigned parking locations; and sending, by the one or more processors, the at least one assignment to the fleet based on the total cost.). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the system of Colijn discloses a method for assigning available parking locations according to “cost” which is measured by the effectiveness of parking locations in relation to the traveling direction and operation of a vehicle. As such, a lower cost is associated with parking locations wherein vehicles are not required to turn around and are therefore preferred/prioritized [claim 13] over locations wherein vehicles would be required to turn around.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Wakayama to include a parking lot where the vehicle can enter without turning around with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Colijn, for the benefit of reducing over all travel time and reducing costs of operating a vehicle in directing the vehicle toward reaching a parking location [0003-5, 0084], saving both time and money in the overall operation of a vehicle in search of suitable parking locations.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above and further in view of Gage (US-20180144622-A1).
In re [Claim 6] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) discloses The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1, the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to the vehicle for entering the second parking lot ([FIG.2; 0053] The route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104. More specifically, the route setting unit 105 sets a moving route for a vehicle so that the vehicle will pass by the first location and pass through the second location, on the basis of the state information obtained by the state information obtaining unit 104.).
Wakayama lacks the following underlined limitations:
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to issue a numbered ticket to the vehicle for entering the second parking lot
Regarding the limitation; Gage (US-20180144622-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a parking notification system and method wherein; a parking notification system for identifying a location of a vehicle includes a controller, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable memory, a camera, and a machine-readable instruction set [claim 1]. Gage further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to issue a numbered ticket to a vehicle [FIG.3-4; claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Wakayama to include a numbered ticket with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gage, for the benefit of issuing parking information remotely to a customer vehicle, avoiding the issue of locating a vehicle after parking which can be a frustrating and time-consuming task when a vehicle is parked in a large parking structure or at an unfamiliar location [0003].
In re [Claim 7] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) lacks The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to issue the numbered ticket electronically to the vehicle via wireless communication.
Regarding the limitation; Gage (US-20180144622-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a parking notification system and method wherein; a parking notification system for identifying a location of a vehicle includes a controller, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable memory, a camera, and a machine-readable instruction set [claim 1]. Gage further discloses wherein the output of the controller is communicatively coupled to a wireless communication module configured to wirelessly transmit the parking information, and the machine-readable instruction set further causes the processor to provide the parking information to the wireless communication module for wireless transmission. [FIG.3-4; claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Wakayama to include the processor is configured to execute the instructions to issue the numbered ticket electronically to the vehicle via wireless communication with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gage, for the benefit of issuing parking information remotely to a customer vehicle, avoiding the issue of locating a vehicle after parking which can be a frustrating and time-consuming task when a vehicle is parked in a large parking structure or at an unfamiliar location [0003].
In re [Claim 8] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) lacks The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit the electronically issued numbered ticket to the vehicle from a communication apparatus installed in on-road equipment provided on a road where the vehicle travels.
Regarding the limitation; Gage (US-20180144622-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a parking notification system and method wherein; a parking notification system for identifying a location of a vehicle includes a controller, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable memory, a camera, and a machine-readable instruction set [claim 1]. Gage further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit the electronically issued numbered ticket to the vehicle from a communication apparatus (network interface hardware 260, network 270, communication path 220) installed in on-road equipment provided on a road where the vehicle travels ([FIG.1-4] a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the parking notification system (100) comprises equipment located on a road/path upon which the vehicle travels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Wakayama to include wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit the electronically issued numbered ticket to the vehicle from a communication apparatus installed in on-road equipment provided on a road where the vehicle travels with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gage, for the benefit of providing the equipment necessary for issuing parking information remotely to a customer vehicle, avoiding the issue of locating a vehicle after parking which can be a frustrating and time-consuming task when a vehicle is parked in a large parking structure or at an unfamiliar location [0003].
In re [Claim 13] (Currently Amended) The limitations of claim 13 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 6.
In re [Claim 14] (Currently Amended) The limitations of claim 14 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above and further in view of Alneghaimish (US-11125577-B2).
In re [Claim 10] (Currently Amended) Wakayama (US-20170241796-A1) lacks The parking lot guidance apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the road near the entrance of the first parking lot is congested ([0051] the state information obtaining unit 104 can also obtain, for example, …the degree of congestion on a street near the first location, and the number of vehicles waiting at the first location.).
Wakayama lacks the following underlined limitations:
wherein the sensor includes an imaging apparatus whose imaging range includes the entrance of the first parking lot, and the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the road near the entrance of the first parking lot is congested using a video photographed using the imaging apparatus.
Regarding the limitation; Alneghaimish (US-11125577-B2) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a system and method for parking management wherein a parking system comprises a parking structure entrance/exit device (402), network (724) and sensors (104) used in managing congestion of vehicles [FIG.1-7]. Alneghaimish further discloses wherein sensors include one or more cameras at the entrance of the parking structure (claim 1) which are used to determine parking availability, management, and congestion and provide images captured to a management system wirelessly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Wakayama to include imaging apparatus whose imaging range include an entrance to a parking lot and configured to determine congestion based upon photographed image/video data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Alneghaimish, for the benefit of providing a system with imaging data related to the traffic of consumer vehicles entering and exiting a parking structure, enabling a system to manage information related to congestion and current availability of a parking structure based upon record vehicle traffic throughout and within the parking structure.
In re [Claim 15] (Currently Amended) The limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 10 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 10.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663