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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “a visit pattern information creation section which visit pattern information…” on line 23. It appears there is a verb missing from the phrase, such as “creates” or “acquires”, and the sentence should read something like “a visit pattern information creation section which creates visit pattern information….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action, such as the steps recited in claim 7. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a map information storage unit which stores map information (claim 1)
a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores… (claims 1, 2)
a parking position recording unit which collects and stores… (claims 1, 3, 4, 5)
a receiving unit which receives… (claim 2)
a visit pattern information creation section which…creates visit vehicle information (claims 1, 3, 4, 5)
a visit pattern information storage section which stores… (claim 1)
a visit pattern change determination section which determines… (claim 1)
a facility change information creation section which creates… (claim 1)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites: “wherein the visit pattern information creation section creates the visit pattern information as summary value information of departure positional information for every grid cell, obtained by plotting and cumulating the departure positional information of the vehicle in every predetermined grid cell created in the map information” (emphasis added). As highlighted above, the claim recites the limitation "grid cell” twice, and there is no antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
An information analysis device comprising:
a map information storage unit which stores map information including facility information indicating an attribute of a facility for a plurality of facilities and parking lot information of the facility linked to the facility;
a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores a vehicle travel information table including at least vehicle information, departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle;
a parking position recording unit which collects and stores the parking positional information included in the vehicle travel information table, the parking positional information corresponding to parking lot information of the facility;
a visit pattern information creation section which visit pattern information related to the facility based on positional information of the vehicle included in a vehicle travel information table of a plurality of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and creates visit vehicle information related to the facility by cumulating vehicles parked in the parking lot of the facility for every vehicle information;
a visit pattern information storage section which stores the visit pattern information related to the facility and the visit vehicle information related to the facility by date/time and/or every day of the week;
a visit pattern change determination section which determines that both visit pattern information related to the facility stored in the visit pattern information storage section and visit vehicle information related to the facility have changed after a first predetermined time period set in advance;
and a facility change information creation section which creates facility change information indicating a change in the facility information, when the visit pattern change determination section determines that both the visit pattern information and the visit vehicle information have changed.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of storing map and facility information, tracking and storing parking facility usage information (positions of cars, entry and exit times, etc.), noting patterns in the parking lot usage, and determining the changes in the parking lot usage. This is equivalent to a person, mentally or by pen and paper, tracking usage of a parking lot and noting trends in usage: when it is busiest and least busy, frequently used locations, a upward trend in use based on nearby facilities, etc. 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). As such, a person observing a parking lot could not trends in its usage over time. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being performed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
An information analysis device comprising:
a map information storage unit which stores map information including facility information indicating an attribute of a facility for a plurality of facilities and parking lot information of the facility linked to the facility;
a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores a vehicle travel information table including at least vehicle information, departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle;
a parking position recording unit which collects and stores the parking positional information included in the vehicle travel information table, the parking positional information corresponding to parking lot information of the facility;
a visit pattern information creation section which visit pattern information related to the facility based on positional information of the vehicle included in a vehicle travel information table of a plurality of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and creates visit vehicle information related to the facility by cumulating vehicles parked in the parking lot of the facility for every vehicle information;
a visit pattern information storage section which stores the visit pattern information related to the facility and the visit vehicle information related to the facility by date/time and/or every day of the week;
a visit pattern change determination section which determines that both visit pattern information related to the facility stored in the visit pattern information storage section and visit vehicle information related to the facility have changed after a first predetermined time period set in advance;
and a facility change information creation section which creates facility change information indicating a change in the facility information, when the visit pattern change determination section determines that both the visit pattern information and the visit vehicle information have changed.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of storing data and determining patterns are all performed by an “analysis device” with units and sections, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The information gathering steps (e.g. “collects and stores”, “[creating] visit pattern information…based on positional information”, etc.) recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or path data or customer data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the storing and determining steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 7 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore ineligible based on a similar rationale.
The dependent claims are likewise ineligible. They generally describe additions to the mental process, or otherwise imply mere data-gathering steps.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170116528 by Barajas Gonzalez et al. (hereinafter “Barajas Gonzalez”), further in view of US12183200 by Lambert et al. (hereinafter “Lambert”).
Regarding claim 1, Barajas Gonzalez teaches An information analysis device comprising: a map information storage unit which stores map information including facility information indicating an attribute of a facility for a plurality of facilities and parking lot information of the facility linked to the facility; see for example paragraph [0019], where the system tracks “hours of operation of nearby attractions” to find parking utilization trends over time. See also paragraphs [0024] and [0054], where the system chooses an optimal parking spot for someone based on their destination being a nearby restaurant. Either of these can read on facility information indicating an attribute of a facility (i.e. either a facility’s location or its hours of operation are attributes). In addition to knowing the relative locations of surrounding facilities, the system assigns specific spots within the parking lot to each user (see, e.g., paragraph [0017]), and notes preferred parking locations (see paragraph [0019]), and even tracks a user’s favorite parking spot (paragraph [0056]), reading on map information.
a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores a vehicle travel information table including at least vehicle information, departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, see for example paragraph [0052], where the system acquires vehicle characteristics, reading on vehicle information. See paragraph [0031] again, where the system knows a vehicle’s spot as well as the vehicles time of entry and exit, along with assigned parking spots discussed in [0017], which together reads on departure positional information (i.e. the spot the vehicle left) as well as parking positional information. Paragraph [0031] time of entry and exit also reads on the date/time information of departing and date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, given that the system does the same for every vehicle (see, e.g., paragraph [0030]).
a parking position recording unit which collects and stores the parking positional information included in the vehicle travel information table, the parking positional information corresponding to parking lot information of the facility; in addition to the above paragraphs, see for example paragraph [0019], where the system examines “historical parking facility utilization over time, noting various preferred parking locations, nearby traffic history and/or current traffic conditions, particularly in view of past, current, or future events that may shape the traffic flow, such as construction events, social events in the immediate area, and hours of operation of nearby attractions, may all be collected and studied.”
a visit pattern information creation section which visit pattern information related to the facility based on positional information of the vehicle included in a vehicle travel information table of a plurality of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and creates visit vehicle information related to the facility by cumulating vehicles parked in the parking lot of the facility for every vehicle information; see for example paragraphs [0038]-[0044], where the system tracks the parking lot occupancy over time based on numerous factors.
a visit pattern information storage section which stores the visit pattern information related to the facility and the visit vehicle information related to the facility by date/time and/or every day of the week; see in particular paragraphs [0038]-[0039], where the system tracks occupancy over time, at certain times, and at sunrise and sunset.
a visit pattern change determination section which determines that both visit pattern information related to the facility stored in the visit pattern information storage section and visit vehicle information related to the facility have changed after a first predetermined time period set in advance; see again paragraphs [0038]-[0040], or [0051], where the system tracks occupancy over time, at certain times, at sunrise and sunset, by day and by time of day. That is, it measures occupancy based on predetermined time units in order to determine occupancy trends.
and a facility change information creation section which creates facility change information indicating a change in the facility information, when the visit pattern change determination section determines that both the visit pattern information and the visit vehicle information have changed. See again paragraphs [0038]-[0044], where the system tracks occupancy changes over time.
Barajas Gonzalez does not explicitly teach the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle.
However, Lambert teaches the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle. See column 20, line 65 through column 21, line 10: “In some embodiments, parking assessment module 235 determines whether a vehicle is parked based at least in part on whether the vehicle is moving (e.g., whether a vehicle has moved a threshold distance over threshold time, such as whether the vehicle moved more than 2 m over 30 seconds). As an example, a vehicle is deemed parked if the vehicle has remained stationary for a threshold period of time or based on a composite score computed based on whether the vehicle is stationary and/or one or more other heuristics that are indicative of whether the vehicle is parked. In some embodiments, parking assessment module 235 uses various other context information in connection with determining whether the vehicle is parked.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking system of Barajas Gonzalez with the parked determination system of Lambert with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to easily determine that a vehicle has parked based on its being immobile for a set amount of time.
Claim 7 is directed towards An information analysis method with similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Barajas Gonzalez teaches further comprising a receiving unit which receives vehicle information indicating an attribute of a vehicle from a plurality of vehicles, and successive positional information of the vehicle as vehicle travel information together with time information; and a vehicle travel information recording unit which creates a vehicle travel information table including at least vehicle information, departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, . See again paragraph [0052], where the system acquires vehicle attributes. See also for example paragraphs [0017]-[0018], where the system tracks (or assigns) the vehicle to specific parking spots, and monitors specific locations of vehicles in the facility. See also paragraphs [0030]-[0031] again, as described above.
Barajas Gonzalez does not explicitly teach the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle.
However, Lambert teaches the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle. See column 20, line 65 through column 21, line 10: “In some embodiments, parking assessment module 235 determines whether a vehicle is parked based at least in part on whether the vehicle is moving (e.g., whether a vehicle has moved a threshold distance over threshold time, such as whether the vehicle moved more than 2 m over 30 seconds). As an example, a vehicle is deemed parked if the vehicle has remained stationary for a threshold period of time or based on a composite score computed based on whether the vehicle is stationary and/or one or more other heuristics that are indicative of whether the vehicle is parked. In some embodiments, parking assessment module 235 uses various other context information in connection with determining whether the vehicle is parked.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking system of Barajas Gonzalez with the parked determination system of Lambert with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to easily determine that a vehicle has parked based on its being immobile for a set amount of time.
Regarding claim 3, Barajas Gonzalez teaches wherein the visit pattern information creation section creates visit pattern information of the facility by cumulating a number of vehicles for every time slot in which parking of the vehicle was started, based on a vehicle travel information table of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit. See again paragraphs [0038]-[0044], where the system tracks occupancy over time.
Regarding claim 4, Barajas Gonzalez teaches wherein the visit pattern information creation section creates the visit pattern information as summary value information of departure positional information for every grid cell, obtained by plotting and cumulating the departure positional information of the vehicle in every predetermined grid cell created in the map information, based on a vehicle travel information table of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit. See paragraph [0031] again, where the system knows a vehicle’s spot (reading on grid cell) as well as the vehicles time of entry and exit, along with the assigned parking spots discussed in [0017].
Regarding claim 5, Barajas Gonzalez teaches wherein the visit pattern information creation section creates visit pattern information related to the facility by cumulating, for every time slot in which parking was started, parked hours of the vehicle parked at each of the parking lots based on a vehicle travel information table of the vehicle parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit. See again paragraphs [0038]-[0044], where the system tracks occupancy over time.
Regarding claim 6, Barajas Gonzalez teaches wherein the vehicle information includes any information of a vehicle model or vehicle type of the vehicle. See again paragraph [0052], where the system tracks a vehicle’s model.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/527379 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application anticipates the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 18/527379 in view of US20170116528 by Barajas Gonzalez et al. Although the copending Application does not claim tracking “a vehicle model or vehicle type of the vehicle” as recited in claim 6 of the instant application, Barajas Gonzalez teaches a parking system which tracks vehicle information, including its model (see paragraph [0052]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking garage tracking system of the copending application with the system of Barajas Gonzalez with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20170316690 by Charles et al. teaching a method of tracking parking lot usage over time.
US20230141416 by Kulkarni et al. teaching tracking vehicle departure and exit times from a parking garage.
US20180114437 by Singh et al. teaching a parking management system which allocates parking spaces.
US20170124378 by High et al. teaching a parking lot monitoring system by satellite to determine its usage over time.
US20200286304 by Zhou et al. teaching learning parking usage trends in order to impose dynamic pricing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666