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 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 6, and 8 have been amended. Claims 14-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-27 have been newly added. Claims 8-13 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are currently pending, while claims 1-7 and 21-27 have been examined in this application below.
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 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 25-27 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).
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); 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 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; the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first roadway and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot; 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.); the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first roadway 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.
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.
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler in view of Han and Ke (CN 1236853 A, a machine translation is attached and 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
In light of the amendments to the claims, claim limitations are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-11 filed 1/29/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Han is exclusively cited for the concepts of "provid[ing] a vehicle arrival trajectory to a vehicle, the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first roadway and cross the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot; and provid[ing] a vehicle departure trajectory to the vehicle in the boarding slot, the vehicle departure trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to cross the second mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway," as recited by claim 1. For example, none of figures 2 or 4A-4C illustrate that vehicles are intended to or capable of crossing over the "driving and parking entry/exit lane 23." Indeed, it is not even described in Han whether the roads are even constructed to allow vehicles to cross the entry/exit lanes (e.g., without barriers or barricades to enforce separation between oncoming traffic lanes). This is further borne out by the specification of Han, which describes that executing a U-turn in the facility is performed by driving around the underground parking space 10, and not simply crossing the "parking entry/exit lanes."
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kessler teaches the following limitation: “provide a vehicle arrival trajectory to a vehicle, the vehicle arrival trajectory configured to cause the vehicle to enter the first mixing lane from the first roadway to arrive at a boarding slot; 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” and what Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose is that the vehicle arrival trajectory crosses the second mixing lane to arrive at a boarding slot while the vehicle departure trajectory crosses the second mixing lane to initiate travel along the first roadway. More simply put according to broadest reasonable interpretation, this is merely requiring that the vehicle is capable of entering from one direction, parking on the opposite side of the undergrounding parking lot, and exiting in the same direction. However, Han is relied upon for this capability. Looking to figure 4C of Han, this would be the vehicle entering the underground parking facility using the right lane 21, parking in a parking spot on the left side, and then when exiting the underground parking facility doing so using the right lane 21 (or similarly the vehicle entering on the left lane 22, parking in a parking spot on the right side, and then exiting using the left lane 22). In figure 2 and paragraphs [0029, 0052 0058] Han clearly teaches that a vehicle can make a u-turn in the underground parking facility into the opposite lane. Therefore, Han’s right and left sides of the underground parking facility cannot be entirely physically separated from one another because if they were then there would be no way to perform a u-turn to cross between the right and left sides of the parking facility. This indicates that the underground parking facility is capable of allowing a vehicle entering on the right to park on the left, or capable of allowing a vehicle entering on the left to park on the right. Furthermore, 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. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Kessler and Han that renders the claim as a whole obvious.
In response to Applicant’s request for rejoinder of Group II (Claims 8-13), in order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP 821.04. Group II does not depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of Group I (and it is noted that Group I is not indicated as allowable). Since Group I and Group II have mutually exclusive features, Group II includes some but not all of the limitations as Group I. Therefore Group II (Claims 8-13) is not eligible for rejoinder.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669