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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in further detail below, the newly added claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made to the claims, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent Claims 21, 39, and 40 are directed to a method, medium, and vehicle, respectively, for recognizing a parking floor. Therefore, independent Claims 21, 39, and 40 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous independent claims, Claims 39 and 40 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative Claim 21 as discussed here. Claim 21 recites:
A method of recognizing a parking floor for a vehicle, the method comprising:
calculating inclination values of the vehicle during a set time period from a first time at which the vehicle enters a parking deck;
generating, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value;
determining, based on a preset reference inclination value, a section of the inclination signal satisfying a first condition as an inclination pulse;
assigning an assignment value to the inclination pulse; and
determining, based on the assignment value, a floor number of the parking deck on which the vehicle is parked.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the steps of calculating inclination values, determining a section, assigning an assignment value, and determining a floor number in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data obtained (collected, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of recognizing a parking floor for a vehicle, the method comprising:
calculating inclination values of the vehicle during a set time period from a first time at which the vehicle enters a parking deck;
generating, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value;
determining, based on a preset reference inclination value, a section of the inclination signal satisfying a first condition as an inclination pulse;
assigning an assignment value to the inclination pulse; and
determining, based on the assignment value, a floor number of the parking deck on which the vehicle is parked.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation above, the examiner submits that the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the step of generating an inclination signal is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to no more than mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 21, 39, and 40 further recite a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a vehicle, a vehicle body, and a system. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The vehicle, vehicle body, and system are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle, vehicle body, and system to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitation of generating an inclination signal is considered to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that inclination signals are anything other than conventional slope information obtained from conventional vehicle sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit 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 performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 21-38 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 21-38are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 21.
Therefore, Claims 21-40 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 21, 24, 31-32, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111192470 A, published 05/22/2020, hereinafter “Jiang”, in view of “VeLoc: Finding Your Car in Indoor Parking Structures”, published 05/02/2018, hereinafter “Gao”.
Regarding Claim 21, Jiang teaches A method of recognizing a parking floor for a vehicle. See at least [0044] and figure 1.
the method comprising: calculating inclination values of the vehicle during a set time period from a first time at which the vehicle enters a parking deck. See at least [0049]-[0050] and figure 1, step 106, wherein vehicle driving information is obtained, including an inclination angle between the vehicle and ground level. The information is obtained during a time period from when the vehicle enters the parking structure to when the vehicle completes parking.
determining, based on a preset reference inclination value, a section of the inclination signal satisfying a first condition as an inclination. See at least [0051] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information is used to determine a parking level. See at least [0055]-[0059] and figure 2, steps 108A-C, wherein the inclination angle information is compared to a reference preset angle and used to determine an inclination of the vehicle (e.g., going up or down a floor).
assigning an assignment value to the inclination pulse. See at least [0069], [0075] and figures 4 and 6, wherein a value of -1 is assigned when the vehicle descends a floor, and a value of 1 is assigned when the vehicle ascends a floor. For example, in figure 6, when the inclination signal has a section 008 at an angle larger than the preset value, a value of 1 is assigned to the section. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein, while figures 4 and 6 illustrate examples with one layer (section), a parking structure can have multiple layers, and each one is compared to the reference inclination to obtain a value, and the values are accumulated and summed to obtain the final parking level.
and determining, based on the assignment value, a floor number of the parking deck on which the vehicle is parked. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein the determined floor number is calculated by summing all of the assigned determined values.
Jiang remains silent on generating, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value and determining an inclination pulse.
Gao teaches generating, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value at least page 5, figure 2, wherein the inclination of the vehicle is represented by its rotation about the x axis. See at least page 6, Section 4.1 and figure 3, wherein rotational velocity around the x-axis of the vehicle is represented as a signal s(gyrox) over time. See at least page 8, Section 4.1.3, wherein the integral of s(gyrox) over time is C(gyrox, t) and represents a rotation (slope) over time.
and determining an inclination pulse. See at least page 7, figure 4, feature F4, and page 8, Section 4.1.3, wherein the peaks of C(gyrox, t) are identified based on the signal at a time point exceed a threshold.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of generating an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value, and determining pulses of the signal to identify slopes. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 24, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 21 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches wherein the section satisfying the first condition is a portion of the inclination signal that does not include the preset reference inclination value. See at least [0059], wherein the reference angle is preset. The sections of the inclination information where the incline angle is greater or smaller than the preset angle (i.e., does not include the reference angle) is determined as an incline.
Regarding Claim 31, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 21 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches wherein determining the floor number comprises: assigning +1 to a first plurality of inclination pulses corresponding to a first plurality of sections having a first plurality of inclination values greater than the preset reference inclination value. See at least [0069], [0075] and figures 4 and 6, wherein a value of -1 is assigned when the vehicle descends a floor, and a value of 1 is assigned when the vehicle ascends a floor. For example, in figure 4, when the inclination signal has a section 003 at an angle smaller than the preset angle, a value of -1 is assigned to the section. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein, while figures 4 and 6 illustrate examples with one layer (section), a parking structure can have multiple layers, and each one is compared to the reference inclination to obtain a value, and the values are accumulated and summed to obtain the final parking level.
assigning -1 to a second plurality of inclination pulses corresponding to a second plurality of sections having a second plurality of inclination values smaller than the preset reference inclination value. See at least [0069], [0075] and figures 4 and 6, wherein a value of -1 is assigned when the vehicle descends a floor, and a value of 1 is assigned when the vehicle ascends a floor. For example, in figure 6, when the inclination signal has a section 008 at an angle larger than the preset value, a value of 1 is assigned to the section. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein, while figures 4 and 6 illustrate examples with one layer (section), a parking structure can have multiple layers, and each one is compared to the reference inclination to obtain a value, and the values are accumulated and summed to obtain the final parking level.
summing all assignment values assigned to the first plurality of inclination pulses and the second plurality of inclination pulses to obtain a summation value. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein the determined floor number is calculated by summing all of the assigned determined values.
and determining a value obtained by adding 0 to the summation value as a first floor number. See at least [0075], wherein the inclination +1 or -1 values are summed, and the initial parking layer is added to the sum. In Jiang, the initial parking level (ground) is labeled as floor 0, and the parking level directly above ground is labeled as floor 1.
Jiang remains silent as to the specifics of and adding 1 to the sum.
Jiang discloses the necessary equations to compute the final parking floor of the vehicle by summing all of the +1 and -1 values indicated by the inclination information. However, Jiang is silent as to the specifics of adding 1 to a result of the summing. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving a final parking floor of the vehicle, as shown by Jiang. Per [0074] of Applicant’s specification, the value of 1 is added to the sum result due to nomenclature where the parking level directly above the ground level is called the “second floor”. Jiang’s disclosure identifies this same level as the “first floor”. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to change Jiang’s initial parking value of 0 added to the sum to an initial parking value of 1, in order to adapt Jiang’s system to users who call the ground floor the “first floor” and the level above the ground floor as the “second floor”. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 32, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 31 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on wherein determining the floor number further comprises determining the first floor number as a final floor number.
Gao teaches wherein determining the floor number further comprises determining the first floor number as a final floor number. See at least page 8, Section 4.1.3, and figure 4, wherein the vehicle is determined to not travel on any slope during the time period. In combination with Jiang’s teaching of determining a final floor number, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of determining the first floor as the final floor. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 39, Jiang teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having therein a program to execute a method of recognizing a parking floor for a vehicle. See at least [0044], [0105], and figure 1.
the method comprising: calculating inclination values of the vehicle during a set time period from a time at which the vehicle enters a parking deck. See at least [0049]-[0050] and figure 1, step 106, wherein vehicle driving information is obtained, including an inclination angle between the vehicle and ground level. The information is obtained during a time period from when the vehicle enters the parking structure to when the vehicle completes parking.
determining, based on a preset reference inclination value, a section of the inclination signal satisfying a first condition as an inclination. See at least [0051] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information is used to determine a parking level. See at least [0055]-[0059] and figure 2, steps 108A-C, wherein the inclination angle information is compared to a reference preset angle and used to determine an inclination of the vehicle (e.g., going up or down a floor).
assigning an assignment value to the inclination pulse. See at least [0069], [0075] and figures 4 and 6, wherein a value of -1 is assigned when the vehicle descends a floor, and a value of 1 is assigned when the vehicle ascends a floor. For example, in figure 6, when the inclination signal has a section 008 at an angle larger than the preset value, a value of 1 is assigned to the section. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein, while figures 4 and 6 illustrate examples with one layer (section), a parking structure can have multiple layers, and each one is compared to the reference inclination to obtain a value, and the values are accumulated and summed to obtain the final parking level.
and determining, based on the assignment value, a floor number of the parking deck on which the vehicle is parked. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein the determined floor number is calculated by summing all of the assigned determined values.
Jiang remains silent on generating, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value and determining an inclination pulse.
Gao teaches generating, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value at least page 5, figure 2, wherein the inclination of the vehicle is represented by its rotation about the x axis. See at least page 6, Section 4.1 and figure 3, wherein rotational velocity around the x-axis of the vehicle is represented as a signal s(gyrox) over time. See at least page 8, Section 4.1.3, wherein the integral of s(gyrox) over time is C(gyrox, t) and represents a rotation (slope) over time.
and determining an inclination pulse. See at least page 7, figure 4, feature F4, and page 8, Section 4.1.3, wherein the peaks of C(gyrox, t) are identified based on the signal at a time point exceed a threshold.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of generating an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value, and determining pulses of the signal to identify slopes. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 40, Jiang teaches A vehicle comprising: a vehicle body; and a system mounted in the vehicle body. See at least [0044], [0105], and figure 1.
the system being configured to: calculate inclination values of the vehicle during a set time period from a time at which the vehicle enters a parking deck. See at least [0049]-[0050] and figure 1, step 106, wherein vehicle driving information is obtained, including an inclination angle between the vehicle and ground level. The information is obtained during a time period from when the vehicle enters the parking structure to when the vehicle completes parking.
determine, based on a preset reference inclination value, a section of the inclination signal satisfying a first condition as an inclination. See at least [0051] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information is used to determine a parking level. See at least [0055]-[0059] and figure 2, steps 108A-C, wherein the inclination angle information is compared to a reference preset angle and used to determine an inclination of the vehicle (e.g., going up or down a floor).
assign an assignment value to the inclination pulse. See at least [0069], [0075] and figures 4 and 6, wherein a value of -1 is assigned when the vehicle descends a floor, and a value of 1 is assigned when the vehicle ascends a floor. For example, in figure 6, when the inclination signal has a section 008 at an angle larger than the preset value, a value of 1 is assigned to the section. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein, while figures 4 and 6 illustrate examples with one layer (section), a parking structure can have multiple layers, and each one is compared to the reference inclination to obtain a value, and the values are accumulated and summed to obtain the final parking level.
and determine, based on the assignment value, a floor number of the parking deck on which the vehicle is parked. See at least [0075] and [0080], wherein the determined floor number is calculated by summing all of the assigned determined values.
Jiang remains silent on generate, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal which is a time-varying inclination value and determining an inclination pulse.
Gao teaches generate, based on the inclination values, an inclination signal which is a time-varying inclination value at least page 5, figure 2, wherein the inclination of the vehicle is represented by its rotation about the x axis. See at least page 6, Section 4.1 and figure 3, wherein rotational velocity around the x-axis of the vehicle is represented as a signal s(gyrox) over time. See at least page 8, Section 4.1.3, wherein the integral of s(gyrox) over time is C(gyrox, t) and represents a rotation (slope) over time.
and determining an inclination pulse. See at least page 7, figure 4, feature F4, and page 8, Section 4.1.3, wherein the peaks of C(gyrox, t) are identified based on the signal at a time point exceed a threshold.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of generating an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value, and determining pulses of the signal to identify slopes. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Gao as applied to claims above, further in view of US 20220198929 A1, filed 12/23/2020, hereinafter “Dudar”, and US 20190360804 A1, filed 03/26/2019, hereinafter “Dormody”.
Regarding Claim 22, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 21 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on further comprising: and calculating a second time at which the vehicle enters the region, wherein the set time period is set based on the second time at which the vehicle enters the region and a third time at which the vehicle completes parking. See at least [0050], wherein the parking period is from when the vehicle enters the parking lot, to when the vehicle completes parking. See at least [0064], wherein the time when the vehicle enters the parking lot is determines, and [0080]-[0082], wherein sensor information and level calculation are performed in real-time.
Jiang remains silent on comparing polygon-defined region information of a polygon-defined region associated with an entrance of the parking deck of a building with global positioning system (GPS) information of the vehicle;
Dudar teaches comparing region information associated with an entrance of the parking deck of a building with global positioning system (GPS) information of the vehicle. See at least [0021], [0027], and [0049]-[0050], wherein GPS coordinate information of the vehicle is compared to building information to recognize that the vehicle has entered a parking structure. Additionally, see at least [0032], wherein building information contains a layout that identifies the entrance of the parking structure.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Dudar’s technique of comparing building information with GPS information to recognize that the vehicle has entered a parking structure. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to easily identify their current location in a multilevel parking structure, as recognized by Dudar (see at least [0009]-[0010]).
Dormody teaches polygon-defined region information. See at least [0014], wherein polygon data is used to define a local area. Additionally, see at least [0024] and figure 2D, wherein the local area comprises a building.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Dormody’s technique of using polygon information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to more accurately know their altitude in a building, allowing them to quickly identify which floor of a building they’re on, as recognized by Dormody (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding Claim 23, Jiang, Gao, Dudar, and Dormody in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 22 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on wherein the inclination signal is generated based on inclination values calculated in units of seconds and accumulated during the set time period.
Gao teaches wherein the inclination signal is generated based on inclination values calculated in units of seconds and accumulated during the set time period. See at least page 6, Section 4.1 and figure 3, wherein s(gyrox) is represented as a function of time in seconds during a period δ/k. Additionally, see at least page. 7, wherein feature F4, representing the peaks of the slope equation C(gyrox, t), is represented as a function of time in seconds.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of generating an inclination signal that is a time-varying inclination value calculated in units of seconds and accumulated during a time period. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Gao in combination as applied to claims above, further in view of Dudar.
Regarding Claim 25, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 24 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on wherein the preset reference inclination value is set to an inclination value of zero.
Dudar teaches wherein the preset reference inclination value is set to an inclination value of zero. See at least [0043] and figure 2, wherein the reference angle 208, indicating a neutral position, is zero.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Dudar’s technique of setting a value of 0 as the reference angle value. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to easily identify their current location in a multilevel parking structure, as recognized by Dudar (see at least [0009]-[0010]).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Gao as applied to claims above, further in view of Dormody.
Regarding Claim 26, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 24 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on wherein the preset reference inclination value is set to an inclination value that intersects the inclination signal a greatest number of times.
Dormody teaches wherein the preset reference inclination value is set to an inclination value that intersects the inclination signal a greatest number of times. See at least [0018], wherein the most common altitude value is determined to be the representative altitude value. In combination with Jiang’s teaching, as discussed above, of setting a reference inclination value, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Dormody’s technique of setting a most frequent value as the representative reference value. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to more accurately know their altitude in a building, allowing them to quickly identify which floor of a building they’re on, as recognized by Dormody (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding Claim 27, Jiang, Gao, Dudar, and Dormody in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 26 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches wherein the preset reference inclination value is set to a value greater than zero by a predetermined value. See at least [0059], wherein the preset reference inclination angle is greater than 0 by a predetermined value (10°, 15°, 20°, etc.)
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Gao as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20210172736 A1, with an earliest priority date of 12/08/2017, hereinafter “Ivanov”.
Regarding Claim 28, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 24 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches further comprising: extracting two inclination pulses among a plurality of inclination pulses, and determining the two inclination pulses as a single inclination pulse or as separate inclination pulses. See at least [0055]-[0059] and figure 4, wherein adjacent sections of the inclination signal are regarded as one continuous incline when the vehicle is driving in the same direction (position 003), and separate inclines when the vehicle changes direction (position 002-003 or 003-004).
Jiang remains silent on the two inclination pulses having a time interval between the two inclination pulses that is less than or equal to a specified time.
Ivanov teaches the two inclination pulses having a time interval between the two inclination pulses that is less than or equal to a specified time. See at least [0081], wherein changes in altitude (pulses) are monitored with a moving time window. Pulses within the time window are accumulated, or considered to be a single change.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Ivanov’s technique of a a time interval between two inclination pulses being equal to or less than a specified time. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables accurate and seamless navigation in a multi-story building, allowing positioning systems to determine which floor a user is on, as recognized by Ivanov (see at least [0002]-[0009]).
Regarding Claim 29, Jiang, Gao, and Ivanov in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 28 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches further comprising notifying a user of the determined floor number. See at least [0051]-[0053] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the determined parking level is sent to the user end.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Gao, and Ivanov as applied to claims above, further in view of US 20210405643 A1, with an earliest priority date of 10/30/2018, hereinafter “Kypris”.
Regarding claim 30, Jiang, Gao, and Ivanov in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 28 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches further comprising: when the two inclination pulses are determined as the single inclination pulse, upon receiving a correction request signal from the user: re-determining the two inclination pulses as the separate inclination pulses; and re-determining the floor number; and when the two inclination pulses are determined as the separate inclination pulses, upon receiving the correction request signal from the user: re-determining the two inclination pulses as the single inclination pulse; and re-determining the floor number.
Ivanov teaches receiving a correction request signal from the user. See at least [0045], [0047], [0097], and [0117], wherein a user is prompted to either accept, reject, or request correction of a determined floor.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Ivanov’s technique of a receiving user input requesting a correction of the determined floor. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables accurate and seamless navigation in a multi-story building, allowing positioning systems to determine which floor a user is on, as recognized by Ivanov (see at least [0002]-[0009]).
Kypris teaches when the two inclination pulses are determined as the single inclination pulse re-determining the two inclination pulses as the separate inclination pulses; and re-determining the floor number; or when the two inclination pulses are determined as the separate inclination pulses, re-determining the two inclination pulses as the separate inclination pulses; and re-determining the floor number. See at least [0208]-[0213], wherein inter-cluster and intra-cluster checks are performed to correct errors. Inter-cluster checks comprise separating adjacent height links that have wrongly been assigned to the same cluster, and Intra-cluster checks comprise combining adjacent height links that have wrongly been considered separate clusters. Additionally, see at least [0017], wherein a height link comprises adjacent segments of data where the height changes, or pulses.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Kypris’ technique of re-determining the floor number by either combining or separating adjacent height pulses, opposite of what the pulses had been classified as. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to accurately determine which floor they are on, as recognized by Kypris (see at least [0001]-[0015]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Gao as applied to claims above, further in view of Kypris.
Regarding Claim 33, Jiang and Gao in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 31 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches wherein determining the floor number further comprises: sensing the vehicle during the set time period. See at least [0049]-[0050] and figure 1, step 106, wherein vehicle driving information is obtained, including an inclination angle between the vehicle and ground level. The information is obtained during a time period from when the vehicle enters the parking structure to when the vehicle completes parking.
determine, based on a preset reference value, a particular sections of the signal satisfying a second condition. See at least [0051] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information is used to determine a parking level. See at least [0055]-[0059] and figure 2, steps 108A-C, wherein the inclination angle information is compared to a reference preset angle and used to segment the inclination signal into uphill and downhill sections.
and determining, based on the section, a floor number. See at least [0051]-[0053] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information including uphill and downhill sections is used to determine the parking floor of the vehicle.
Jiang remains silent on sensing a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and generating, based on the longitudinal acceleration, an acceleration signal that is a time- varying acceleration; an acceleration value, an acceleration pulse; and determining, based on the acceleration pulse, a second floor number.
Gao teaches on sensing a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and generating, based on the longitudinal acceleration, an acceleration signal that is a time- varying acceleration; an acceleration value, an acceleration pulse. See at least page 4, figure 2, wherein the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is the acceleration of the vehicle in the y axis. See at least page 6, Section 4.1 and figure 3, wherein a gyroscope sensors acceleration of the vehicle in the y-axis and generates an acceleration signal E(accy, t) as a function of time. See at least pages 6-7, Section 4.1.1 and figure 4, wherein the acceleration signal is compared to a present reference acceleration value thres1 to determine the pulses of the vehicle’s movement, resulting in feature F1.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of sensing longitudinal acceleration, generating a time-varying acceleration signal, a preset reference acceleration value, and an acceleration pulse. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Kypris teaches determining a second floor number. See at least [0071] and [0256], wherein the trajectory is re-run to assign a second floor number.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Kypris’ technique of determining two floors numbers. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to accurately determine which floor they are on, as recognized by Kypris (see at least [0001]-[0015]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Gao, and Kypris as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Ivanov.
Regarding Claim 34, Jiang, Gao, and Kypris in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 33 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on further comprising determining, as a final floor number, a greater value of the first floor number and the second floor number.
Ivanov teaches further comprising determining, as a final floor number, a greater value of the first floor number and the second floor number. See at least [0109], wherein the highest value obtained for each pair of floors in a multi-floor building is taken as the value for the floor. In combination with Kypris’ teaching, discussed above, of using acceleration pulses to determine a floor number, and Jiang’s teaching, discussed above, of using inclination pulses to obtain a floor number, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Ivanov’s technique of taking the larger value out of the obtained values to be a final value for a floor. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables accurate and seamless navigation in a multi-story building, allowing positioning systems to determine which floor a user is on, as recognized by Ivanov (see at least [0002]-[0009]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Gao, and Kypris as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Dudar and Dormody.
Regarding Claim 35, Jiang, Gao, and Kypris in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 33 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches and the section is determined as the particular section of the signal that does not include the preset reference value.. See at least [0059], wherein the reference angle is preset. The sections of the inclination information where the incline angle is greater or smaller than the preset angle (i.e., does not include the reference angle) is determined as an incline.
Jiang remains silent on wherein: the preset reference acceleration value is set to zero or an acceleration value that intersects the acceleration signal a greatest number of times; acceleration pulse, acceleration value.
Gao teaches acceleration pulse, acceleration value. See at least page 4, figure 2, wherein the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is the acceleration of the vehicle in the y axis. See at least page 6, Section 4.1 and figure 3, wherein a gyroscope sensors acceleration of the vehicle in the y-axis and generates an acceleration signal E(accy, t) as a function of time. See at least pages 6-7, Section 4.1.1 and figure 4, wherein the acceleration signal is compared to a present reference acceleration value thres1 to determine the pulses of the vehicle’s movement, resulting in feature F1.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Gao’s technique of sensing longitudinal acceleration, generating a time-varying acceleration signal, a preset reference acceleration value, and an acceleration pulse. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles in underground parking structures to perform localization with minimal errors without GPS or Wi-Fi localization available, as recognized by Gao (see at least page 3, paragraphs 1-2).
Dudar teaches wherein the preset reference value is set to a value of zero. See at least [0043] and figure 2, wherein the reference angle 208, indicating a neutral position, is zero.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Dudar’s technique of setting a value of 0 as the reference angle value. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to easily identify their current location in a multilevel parking structure, as recognized by Dudar (see at least [0009]-[0010]).
Dormody teaches wherein the preset reference value is set to a value that intersects the signal a greatest number of times. See at least [0018], wherein the most common altitude value is determined to be the representative altitude value. In combination with Jiang’s teaching, as discussed above, of setting a reference inclination value, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Dormody’s technique of setting a most frequent value as the representative reference value. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to more accurately know their altitude in a building, allowing them to quickly identify which floor of a building they’re on, as recognized by Dormody (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Gao, and Kypris as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Dudar and Ivanov.
Regarding Claim 36, Jiang, Gao, and Kypris in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 33 as discussed above, and Jiang additionally teaches wherein determining the floor number further comprises: sensing the vehicle during the set time period. See at least [0049]-[0050] and figure 1, step 106, wherein vehicle driving information is obtained, including an inclination angle between the vehicle and ground level. The information is obtained during a time period from when the vehicle enters the parking structure to when the vehicle completes parking.
determine, based on a preset reference value, a particular sections of the signal satisfying a second condition. See at least [0051] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information is used to determine a parking level. See at least [0055]-[0059] and figure 2, steps 108A-C, wherein the inclination angle information is compared to a reference preset angle and used to segment the inclination signal into uphill and downhill sections.
and determining, based on the section, a floor number. See at least [0051]-[0053] and figure 1, step 108, wherein the inclination signal information including uphill and downhill sections is used to determine the parking floor of the vehicle.
Jiang remains silent on a steering angle, generating, based on the steering angle, a steering angle signal that is a time-varying steering angle value; a steering angle value, determining a third floor number, and determining a final floor number based on the first floor number, the second floor number; and the third floor number.
Dudar teaches a steering angle, generating, based on the steering angle, a steering angle signal that is a time-varying steering angle value; a steering angle value. See at least [0043], [0051], and figures 2-4, wherein vehicle data is obtained, including steering input of the vehicle as the vehicle operates in the parking structure. The steering angle is used to generate a signal representing a steering angle value over time.
obtaining steering angle pulses of the steering angle signals. See at least [0043]-[0045] and figures 2-4, wherein troughs, or pulses, are obtained from the steering angle signals.
determining a third floor number using the steering angle pulses. See at least [0038] and [0051], wherein the steering angle information is sued to determine the floor number of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Dudar’s technique of obtaining steering angle signals, steering angle pulses, and determining a floor number based on the steering data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to easily identify their current location in a multilevel parking structure, as recognized by Dudar (see at least [0009]-[0010]).
Ivanov teaches determining a final floor number based on the first floor number, the second floor number; and the third floor number.. See at least [0041], wherein the median value of an obtained plurality of values for each pair of floors in a multi-floor building is taken as the value for the floor.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Ivanov’s technique of taking the larger value out of the obtained values to be a final value for a floor. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables accurate and seamless navigation in a multi-story building, allowing positioning systems to determine which floor a user is on, as recognized by Ivanov (see at least [0002]-[0009]).
Regarding Claim 37, Jiang, Gao, Kypris, Dudar, and Ivanov in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 36 as discussed above, and Jiang remains silent on wherein determining the final floor number comprises determining a median value among the first floor number, the second floor number, and the third floor number as the final floor number.
Ivanov teaches wherein determining the final floor number comprises determining a median value among the first floor number, the second floor number, and the third floor number as the final floor number. See at least [0041], wherein the median value of an obtained plurality of values for each pair of floors in a multi-floor building is taken as the value for the floor.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Ivanov’s technique of taking the larger value out of the obtained values to be a final value for a floor. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables accurate and seamless navigation in a multi-story building, allowing positioning systems to determine which floor a user is on, as recognized by Ivanov (see at least [0002]-[0009]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jiang, Gao, Kypris, Dudar, and Ivanov as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Dormody.
Regarding Claim 38, Jiang, Gao, Kypris, Dudar, and Ivanov in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 36, and Jiang additionally teaches and the section is determined as the particular section of the signal that does not include the preset reference value. See at least [0059], wherein the reference angle is preset. The sections of the inclination information where the incline angle is greater or smaller than the preset angle (i.e., does not include the reference angle) is determined as an incline.
Jiang remains silent on wherein: the preset reference steering angle value is set to zero or a steering angle value that intersects the steering angle signal a greatest number of times; steering angle pulse, steering angle value.
Dudar teaches wherein the preset reference value is set to a value of zero. See at least [0043] and figure 2, wherein the reference angle 208, indicating a neutral position, is zero.
steering angle value, steering angle pulse. See at least [0043], [0051], and figures 2-4, wherein vehicle data is obtained, including steering input of the vehicle as the vehicle operates in the parking structure. The steering angle is used to generate a signal representing a steering angle value over time.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Jiang with Dudar’s technique of obtaining steering angle signals, steering angle pulses, and determining a floor number based on the steering data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to easily identify their current location in a multilevel parking structure, as recognized by Dudar (see at least [0009]-[0010]).
Dormody teaches wherein the preset reference value is set to a value that intersects the signal a greatest number of times. See at least [0018], wherein the most common altitude value is determined to be the representative altitude value. In combination with Jiang’s teaching, as discussed above, of setting a reference inclination value, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Jiang with Dormody’s technique of setting a most frequent value as the representative reference value. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables users to more accurately know their altitude in a building, allowing them to quickly identify which floor of a building they’re on, as recognized by Dormody (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights