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 . Claims 1-13 and 21-27 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 21 have been amended. Claims 8-13 have been cancelled. Claims 28-31 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 21-31 are currently pending and have been examined in this application below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/24/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 recites “… allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway and the second roadway” but should instead recite --… allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from [[the]] a first roadway and [[the]] a second roadway--.
Claim 29 recites “the vehicle departure trajectory” but should instead recite --the third vehicle trajectory--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 21-23, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (US 2018/0357912 A1, cited in the IDS received 9/17/2024) in view of Han (KR 10-1441661 B1, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 10/29/2025 and is being relied upon) and Mielenz (US 2017/0351267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kessler discloses a transportation system for autonomous vehicles, comprising: one or more computers configured to determine respective vehicle trajectories for respective autonomous vehicles and to provide the respective vehicle trajectories to the respective autonomous vehicles (see at least Figs. 1A-1B, [0053-0054, 0063-0065, 0072] - The CMS 102 may be configured to coordinate a continuous flow of plurality of vehicles, which may each have its own VMS (e.g., 110 a-d), on track segments (e.g., 112 a, 112 b, and 112 c)… Additionally, a route module 226 may create a route-journey information set… a physical vehicle may be designated for the route-journey information set, which may include a departure zone and an arrival zone.); a roadway including a first roadway configured for vehicle travel in a first direction (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – constant flow lane 504); a boarding zone that is separated from the roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – single lane 502 branches off from constant flow lane… vehicle slots 505) and comprises: a set of boarding slots configured to receive autonomous vehicles (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – vehicle slots 505); and a mixing zone adjacent the set of boarding slots and configured to allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway, the mixing zone comprising: a first mixing lane connected to the first roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – single lane 502 branches off from constant flow lane); a first buffer zone at an entrance to the first mixing lane (see at least Fig. 5), wherein: the one or more computers are configured to: provide a vehicle arrival trajectory to a vehicle, the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first buffer zone; the first mixing lane from the first roadway to arrive at a boarding slot (see at least Fig. 5, [0086, 0090] – vehicles traveling along the constant flow lane 502 branches into the single lane 502 and feeds into a vehicle slot 505); and provide a vehicle departure trajectory to the vehicle in the boarding slot, the vehicle departure trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to initiate travel along the first roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086, 0090] – departing vehicles back out of their vehicle slots and move forward to rejoin the constant flow lane 502).
Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose a pair of roadways extending alongside one another and physically divided from one another, a first roadway of the pair of roadways configured for vehicle travel in a first direction, and a second roadway of the pair of roadways configured for vehicle travel in a second direction opposite the first direction; a boarding zone that is vertically separated from the pair of roadways; a mixing zone adjacent the set of boarding slots and configured to allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway and the second roadway; and a second mixing lane connected to the second roadway and positioned between the first mixing lane and the set of boarding slots; and a second buffer zone at an entrance to the second mixing lane; the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first buffer zone; in accordance with a determination that another vehicle is in the second mixing lane, cause the vehicle to pause in the first buffer zone; and in accordance with a determination that no vehicles are in the second mixing lane, cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot; in accordance with a determination that no vehicles are in the first mixing lane or in the second mixing lane, provide the vehicle departure trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway.
Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a pair of roadways extending alongside one another and physically divided from one another, a first roadway of the pair of roadways configured for vehicle travel in a first direction, and a second roadway of the pair of roadways configured for vehicle travel in a second direction opposite the first direction (see at least Figs. 4a-4c, [0056] – left and right above ground lanes physically divided with vehicles travelling in opposite directions are shown); a boarding zone that is vertically separated from the pair of roadways (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0032] – parking guidance lanes 20 and underground parking space 10 with parking spaces/slots); a mixing zone adjacent the set of boarding slots and configured to allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway and the second roadway (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031, 0058] – The combined driving and parking guidance lane 20 is designed to enable vehicles driving on a road above ground to park in an underground parking space 10 and to enable vehicles parked in an underground parking space 10 to exit onto a road above ground in any manner possible.); and a second mixing lane connected to the second roadway and positioned between the first mixing lane and the set of boarding slots (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031, 0058] - The combined driving and parking guidance lane 20 is designed to enable vehicles driving on a road above ground to park in an underground parking space 10 and to enable vehicles parked in an underground parking space 10 to exit onto a road above ground in any manner possible…Meanwhile, the present invention can be used not only when a vehicle is parked in an underground parking space 10, but also when making a U-turn on a ground road. When a vehicle driving on a ground road wants to make a U-turn to the opposite lane, the vehicle can make a U-turn by using the driving and parking guidance combined lane 20 and the underground parking space 10 to the driving and parking guidance combined lane 20 on the opposite side.); a first buffer zone at an entrance to the first mixing lane (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]); and a second buffer zone at an entrance to the second mixing lane (s see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]), the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first buffer zone; cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]); the vehicle departure trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Han into the invention of Kessler with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing costs for above-ground parking and improving safety (Han – [0011-0013]). To further clarify, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in any parking lot/garage/area/facility that has two-way flow without physical barriers, that vehicles entering from either direction would be capable of maneuvering into parking spots on either side. Parking spots are conveniently arranged on opposing sides of driving lanes in parking lots/garages/areas/facilities, and autonomous parking systems are designed to identify available parking spaces and maneuver the vehicle into such spaces regardless of whether the space is located on the left or right side. Selecting a parking space on either side would have been a predictable use of the prior art according to the already established functions. Doing so would improve the usability and efficiency by allowing the vehicle to park on either side by increasing the number of available parking spots. Doing so does not produce new or unexpected results, as this merely involves applying known vehicle maneuvering techniques to a known arrangement of parking spaces.
The claim recites a transportation system for autonomous vehicles along a specific roadway configuration (first roadway, second roadway, boarding slots, mixing lanes, buffer zones. Kessler teaches part of the specific roadway configuration and how the autonomous vehicles maneuver along the roadway configuration. Han teaches the specific roadway configuration that is claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement autonomous driving along Han’s roadway configuration using known traffic rules and safe driving practices. For example, Han teaches a roadway configuration that would allow a vehicle to travel along a first buffer zone to a first mixing lane, turn across the opposite lane into a parking space, and then leave the parking space by crossing back to the first mixing lane. This is describing a two-way parking aisle where vehicles can park on either side, which is a known configuration. When parking on the opposite side, the safe driving practice would be to wait for any vehicles in the opposite direction to pass before turning into the parking spot. When leaving, the vehicle can leave in the same direction, and in doing so the safe driving practice would be to wait for any vehicles in either direction to pass before pulling out and leaving. These are driving practices that are implemented by drivers every day, and could also be implemented by an autonomous vehicle. Merely automating a well-known driving practice is considered to be generally obvious and doing so would yield predictable results.
Mielenz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: in accordance with a determination that another vehicle is in the second mixing lane, cause the vehicle to pause in the first buffer zone (see at least Fig. 2, [0019, 0041, 0044-0045] – when there is spatial and temporal overlap, it is possible to easily adapt the trajectories by inserting stopping points at which the vehicle waits for a certain time - vehicle 50 can wait in the area shown (first buffer zone) for vehicle 10 before traveling along trajectory 45, trajectory 45 travels from one side of area 31 and turns across the opposite side of area 31 into parking spot 25’); and in accordance with a determination that no vehicles are in the second mixing lane, cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot (see at least Fig. 2, [0019, 0041, 0044-0045] – when there is spatial and temporal overlap, it is possible to easily adapt the trajectories by inserting stopping points at which the vehicle waits for a certain time - vehicle 50 can wait in the area shown (first buffer zone) for vehicle 10 before traveling along trajectory 45, trajectory 45 travels from one side of area 31 and turns across the opposite side of area 31 into parking spot 25’, thereby avoiding collisions).
Mielenz further teaches the following limitations: in accordance with a determination that no vehicles are in the first mixing lane or in the second mixing lane, provide the vehicle departure trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway (see at least Fig. 2, [0019, 0041, 0044-0045] – when there is no temporal overlap, an adaptation of the trajectories may not be necessary since no collision risk exists – vehicle 10 has a trajectory 40 that backs out to the opposite side of area 31 and then drives along the opposite side of area 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Mielenz into the invention of Kessler with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing multiple vehicles to autonomously negotiate a parking facility in a safe and collision free manner (Mielenz – [0011]). As described above, the claim is reciting how to autonomously maneuver a vehicle when parking on an opposite side of a two-way parking aisle and leaving the parking spot in a well known way that follows typical traffic rules and safe driving practices. Mielenz merely demonstrates an autonomous vehicle that can park on an opposite side after waiting for another vehicle to avoid collision. Mielenz also demonstrates an autonomous vehicle that can leave a parking space when there are no vehicles around. Mielenz is used to demonstrate typical yielding behavior in a two-way parking aisle when parking and leaving. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement this yielding behavior in a buffer zone to avoid collisions in parking areas.
Regarding claim 2, Kessler discloses wherein: in a first portion of the vehicle departure trajectory, the vehicle travels in a direction of a first end of the vehicle; and in a second portion of the vehicle departure trajectory, the vehicle travels in a direction of a second end of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0090] – departing vehicles back out of their parking spots… departing vehicles move forward).
Regarding claim 3, Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the pair of roadways are vertically elevated relative to the boarding zone.
Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the pair of roadways are vertically elevated relative to the boarding zone (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Han is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Kessler discloses wherein the vehicle departure trajectory defines a travel path that merges the vehicle into the first roadway between a first moving vehicle having a first known trajectory and a second vehicle having a second known trajectory (see at least Fig. 5, [0071, 0078-0079, 0086, 0090, 0094, 0104, 0106] – merging the physical vehicle into the continuous flow… merging may be achieved by increasing the separation between vehicles in the continuous flow to allow a vehicle departing an embarkation area to merge with the continuous flow of vehicles… departing vehicles back out of their vehicle slots and move forward to rejoin the constant flow lane 502).
Regarding claim 6, Kessler discloses wherein: the vehicle is a first vehicle; and the one or more computers are configured to generate the vehicle departure trajectory based at least in part on a preexisting vehicle trajectory of a second vehicle traveling along the first roadway, the vehicle departure trajectory configured to maintain a separation distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle along the first roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0071, 0078-0079, 0086, 0090, 0104, 0106] – merging the physical vehicle into the continuous flow… merging may be achieved by increasing the separation between vehicles in the continuous flow to allow a vehicle departing an embarkation area to merge with the continuous flow of vehicles).
Regarding claim 7, Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first mixing lane and the second mixing lane are positioned between a bypass segment of the first roadway and a bypass segment of the second roadway.
Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first mixing lane and the second mixing lane are positioned between a bypass segment of the first roadway and a bypass segment of the second roadway (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Han is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 21-23 and 25-27, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-3 and 5-7, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 21-23 and 25-27 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-3 and 5-7; therefore, claims 21-23 and 25-27 are also rejected over the same rationale as in claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Regarding claim 28, Kessler discloses a transportation system for autonomous vehicles, comprising: one or more computers configured to determine respective vehicle trajectories for respective autonomous vehicles and to provide the respective vehicle trajectories to the respective autonomous vehicles (see at least Figs. 1A-1B, [0053-0054, 0063-0065, 0072] - The CMS 102 may be configured to coordinate a continuous flow of plurality of vehicles, which may each have its own VMS (e.g., 110 a-d), on track segments (e.g., 112 a, 112 b, and 112 c)… Additionally, a route module 226 may create a route-journey information set… a physical vehicle may be designated for the route-journey information set, which may include a departure zone and an arrival zone.); a roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – constant flow lane 504); a boarding zone that is separated from the roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – single lane 502 branches off from constant flow lane… vehicle slots 505) and comprises: a set of boarding slots configured to receive autonomous vehicles (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – vehicle slots 505); a mixing zone adjacent the set of boarding slots and configured to allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway, the mixing zone comprising: a first mixing lane connected to the first roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086] – single lane 502 branches off from constant flow lane); a first buffer zone at an entrance to the first mixing lane (see at least Fig. 5), wherein: the one or more computers are configured to: provide a first vehicle trajectory to a vehicle, the first vehicle trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first buffer zone (see at least Fig. 5, [0086, 0090] – vehicles traveling along the constant flow lane 502 branches into the single lane 502); a second vehicle trajectory from the first buffer zone to an assigned parking spot is deconflicted with respect to all other vehicle trajectories in the mixing zone, provide the second vehicle trajectory to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone (see at least Fig. 5, [0086, 0090] – vehicles traveling along the constant flow lane 502 branches into the single lane 502 and feeds into a vehicle slot 505); provide the third vehicle trajectory to the vehicle in the boarding slot to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway (see at least Fig. 5, [0086, 0090] – departing vehicles back out of their vehicle slots and move forward to rejoin the constant flow lane 502).
Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose a pair of roadways extending alongside one another and physically divided from one another; a boarding zone that is vertically separated from the pair of roadways; a mixing zone adjacent the set of boarding slots and configured to allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway and the second roadway; and a second mixing lane connected to the second roadway and positioned between the first mixing lane and the set of boarding slots; and a second buffer zone connected to the second mixing lane; in accordance with a determination that a second vehicle trajectory from the first buffer zone to an assigned parking spot is deconflicted with respect to all other vehicle trajectories in the mixing zone, provide the second vehicle trajectory to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot; and in accordance with a determination that a third vehicle trajectory from the boarding slot to the first roadway is deconflicted with respect to all other vehicle trajectories in the mixing zone, provide the third vehicle trajectory to the vehicle in the boarding slot to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane and enter the first mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway.
Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a pair of roadways extending alongside one another and physically divided from one another (see at least Figs. 4a-4c, [0056] – left and right above ground lanes physically divided with vehicles travelling in opposite directions are shown); a boarding zone that is vertically separated from the pair of roadways (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0032] – parking guidance lanes 20 and underground parking space 10 with parking spaces/slots); a mixing zone adjacent the set of boarding slots and configured to allow vehicle access to the set of boarding slots for vehicles from the first roadway and the second roadway (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031, 0058] – The combined driving and parking guidance lane 20 is designed to enable vehicles driving on a road above ground to park in an underground parking space 10 and to enable vehicles parked in an underground parking space 10 to exit onto a road above ground in any manner possible.); and a second mixing lane connected to the second roadway and positioned between the first mixing lane and the set of boarding slots (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031, 0058] - The combined driving and parking guidance lane 20 is designed to enable vehicles driving on a road above ground to park in an underground parking space 10 and to enable vehicles parked in an underground parking space 10 to exit onto a road above ground in any manner possible…Meanwhile, the present invention can be used not only when a vehicle is parked in an underground parking space 10, but also when making a U-turn on a ground road. When a vehicle driving on a ground road wants to make a U-turn to the opposite lane, the vehicle can make a U-turn by using the driving and parking guidance combined lane 20 and the underground parking space 10 to the driving and parking guidance combined lane 20 on the opposite side.); a first buffer zone connected to the first mixing lane (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]); and a second buffer zone connected to the second mixing lane (s see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]), a second vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]); a third vehicle trajectory with the vehicle in the boarding slot to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane and enter the first mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c, [0031-0032]).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Han is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim recites a transportation system for autonomous vehicles along a specific roadway configuration (first roadway, second roadway, boarding slots, mixing lanes, buffer zones. Kessler teaches part of the specific roadway configuration and how the autonomous vehicles maneuver along the roadway configuration. Han teaches the specific roadway configuration that is claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement autonomous driving along Han’s roadway configuration using known traffic rules and safe driving practices. For example, Han teaches a roadway configuration that would allow a vehicle to travel along a first buffer zone to a first mixing lane, turn across the opposite lane into a parking space, and then leave the parking space by crossing back to the first mixing lane. This is describing a two-way parking aisle where vehicles can park on either side, which is a known configuration. When parking on the opposite side, the safe driving practice would be to wait for any vehicles in the opposite direction to pass before turning into the parking spot. When leaving, the vehicle can leave in the same direction, and in doing so the safe driving practice would be to wait for any vehicles in either direction to pass before pulling out and leaving. These are driving practices that are implemented by drivers every day, and could also be implemented by an autonomous vehicle. Merely automating a well-known driving practice is considered to be generally obvious and doing so would yield predictable results.
Mielenz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: in accordance with a determination that a second vehicle trajectory from the first buffer zone to an assigned parking spot is deconflicted with respect to all other vehicle trajectories in the mixing zone, provide the second vehicle trajectory to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first buffer zone and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot (see at least Fig. 2, [0019, 0041, 0044-0045] – when there is spatial and temporal overlap, it is possible to easily adapt the trajectories by inserting stopping points at which the vehicle waits for a certain time - vehicle 50 can wait in the area shown (first buffer zone) for vehicle 10 before traveling along trajectory 45, trajectory 45 travels from one side of area 31 and turns across the opposite side of area 31 into parking spot 25’).
Mielenz further teaches the following limitations: in accordance with a determination that a third vehicle trajectory from the boarding slot to the first roadway is deconflicted with respect to all other vehicle trajectories in the mixing zone, provide the third vehicle trajectory to the vehicle in the boarding slot to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane and enter the first mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway (see at least Fig. 2, [0019, 0041, 0044-0045] – when there is no temporal overlap, an adaptation of the trajectories may not be necessary since no collision risk exists – vehicle 10 has a trajectory 40 that backs out to the opposite side of area 31 and then drives along the opposite side of area 31).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Mielenz is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 29, Kessler discloses wherein; in a first portion of the vehicle departure trajectory, the vehicle travels in a direction of a first end of the vehicle; and in a second portion of the vehicle departure trajectory, the vehicle travels in a direction of a second end of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0090] - For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5, arriving vehicles enter the loading zone as departing vehicles back out of their vehicle slots as a coordinated group (shown in 500 b). Then, the departing vehicles move forward as shown in 500 c (e.g., move from vehicle slot into boarding zone egress buffer).).
Mielenz teaches the following limitations: wherein; in a first portion of the vehicle departure trajectory, the vehicle travels in a direction of a first end of the vehicle; and in a second portion of the vehicle departure trajectory, the vehicle travels in a direction of a second end of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 2, [0040-0041, 0045] – vehicle trajectory 40 shown to back out and then drive forward).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Mielenz is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above. This is a well known maneuver of reversing out of a parking spot and then proceeding forward.
Regarding claim 30, Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first buffer zone and the second buffer zone are configured for unidirectional travel.
Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first buffer zone and the second buffer zone are configured for unidirectional travel (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Han is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 31, Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the set of boarding slots is a single set of boarding slots positioned next to the second mixing lane.
Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the set of boarding slots is a single set of boarding slots positioned next to the second mixing lane (see at least Figs. 2, 4a-4c).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Han is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Mielenz also teaches the following limitations: wherein the set of boarding slots is a single set of boarding slots positioned next to the second mixing lane (see at least Fig. 2).
The motivation to combine Kessler and Mielenz is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler in view of Han, Mielenz, and Ke (CN 1236853 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 10/29/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 4, Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the boarding zone is at grade level; and the pair of roadways are below grade level.
Ke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein: the boarding zone is at grade level (see at least Fig. 1, [0016] – gentle ramp 10 to the first floor 21); and the pair of roadways are below grade level (see at least Fig. 1, [0016] – fast lanes 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ke into the invention of Kessler with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing drivers with convenient parking near their desired destinations (Ke – [0003]).
Regarding claim 24, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 24 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 24 is also rejected over the same rationale as in claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11 filed 8/24/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mielenz.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is a list of the relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Huger (US 2019/0283738 A1), Moosaei (US 2018/0164830 A1), and Murphy (US 2008/0162027 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights