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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5,7-8,12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al(USPGPUB 2021/0295610 A1) in view of Papineau et al(USPat 10,964,215 B1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Lee et al(Lee) includes:
1) a user application configured to allow a user to search for a plurality of parking spaces in an area and reserve a parking space for a vehicle based on a selectable criteria is met by the application provided by the central server(110), which allows a user devices(145_to 145_n) to register vehicle information, so as to access the application server for the purpose of finding parking spaces(see: Lee, secs[0032-0033]);
2) a remotely operable device, installed at the parking space, configured to communicate with an access controller connected to a barrier to restrict unauthorized access to the parking space is met by the local server(130), which is connected to an entranceway LPR(152), having barrier gate, as seen in figure 3, and controlling the barrier gate of the LPR(152) to allow charging at chargers(156_1 to 156_n)(see: Lee, sec[0035]);
3) wherein the remotely operable device is further configured to communicate with a remote server and/or the user application to receive a command to open the barrier so that the vehicle can be parked at the reserved parking space is met by the local server(130) being in communication with central server(110) and user device(145), by communicating via networks(120,125)(see: Lee, sec[0036]).
- Lee does not teach:
1) wherein the user application is further configured to allow the user to remotely control the barrier upon successful booking and payment related to the parking space
2) verify the user, and upon successful verification of the user, transmit a control signal to the access controller to open the barrier
3) or authenticate the user, and upon successful authentication of the user, transmit a control signal to the access controller to open the barrier so that the vehicle can be parked at the reserved parking space.
In related art, Papineau et al(Papineau) teaches a vehicle parking space occupancy verification and use system, wherein a user verification is performed for determining that a user may occupy a parking spot(see: column 7, lines 48-62), and upon successful authentication, the barrier is opened so as to allow the user to parkin in the space, and as well, may be controlled by a user remotely opening the gate by the user’s phone(see: column 9, lines 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the verification and remote opening capabilities of the system of Papineau, into the system of Lee, since this would have enhanced the ability of the system to ensure that the proper vehicle is given access to the eligible parking spaces that are desired by users.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) an electric energy meter associated with an electric charging point provided at the parking space is met by the fee management unit(260), which calculates a charging fee based on the charge amount information, which would have inherently been derived from some form of meter that monitors electrical usage(see: Lee, sec[0037]).
2) wherein the electric energy meter is configured to communicate with at least one of the remotely operable devices, the user application, and the remote server to allow the user to charge the vehicle while it is parked at the reserved parking space is met by the fee management unit(260) communicating with the integrated management server(200), which comprises central server(110) and local server(130) for providing fee information(see: Lee, sec[0037]).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the user application is further configured to track parking usage and charge the user for the parking space and/or for using the electric charging point at the parking space is met by the user device(145) performing preliminary settlement of the calculated total fee by using the charger(156)(see: Lee, sec[0040]).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the remotely operable device and the electric energy meter are configured to communicate with the user application and other devices in the system via one or more of a wired connection, Wi-Fi, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G mobile networks, and Zigbee connection is met by the unit(260) communicating information via network(120 and 125), wherein the network may be composed of any of computer network, the internet, a telephone network, a TCP/IP data network(including WAN, LAN, VPN, etc)(see: Lee, sec[0032]), which would have constituted any of the above stated claimed communication platforms.
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) one or more sensors installed at the parking space to monitor the vehicles accessing the parking space is met by the LPR vehicle detector, which recognizes a vehicle attempting to enter a parking space(see: Lee, sec[0035]).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) one or more cameras installed at the parking space to capture information such as vehicle type, model, colour, license plate number of the vehicle entering the parking space, and to track people entering and exiting the parking space is met by the camera which utilizes LPR(License Plate Recognition) as the vehicle detector(see: Lee, sec[0035]).
--With regards to claim 8,
1) the remotely operable device is further configured to establish a wireless local area network that can be detected by the user application and enable the user application to open the barrier without requiring connecting to the remote server would have been met by the user device(145) approaching the lot(150) and establishing connection with the remote server, so as to grant access to the parking lot, since embodiments exist where the local server(130) performs the processing of the central server(110)(see: Lee, sec[0036]), which would thereby allow the local server to allow access to the parking lot without use of the remote central server(110).
-- Claim 12 recites a method which substantially corresponds to the system of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as: 1) sending a command to trigger the access controller to open the barrier upon user activation is met by the user device(145) inputting a charging request, which would provide access for the vehicle when it approaches the LPR(152)(see: Lee, sec[0038]).
-- Claim 13 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the system of claim 2, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
-- With regards to claim 15,
1) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by a computer is met by the storage medium utilized to store instructions executed by computing devices in the system(see: Lee, sec[0072]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al(Lee) in view of Papineau et al(Papineau) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer(USPGPUB 2021/0394636).
-- With regard to claim 6, Lee and Papineau does not teach:
1) the one or more sensors comprises a motion detector, an infrared reflectance sensor, and a magnetometer.
Lee does teach use of a camera for the purpose of detecting vehicle presence and analyzing the vehicle. Use of systems for identifying vehicles that are charging at a parking space is well known. In related art, Meyer teaches a system and method for identifying characteristics of electric vehicles, wherein EVCS are utilized at a parking space, and include a plurality of sensors for determining the electric vehicle, wherein the sensors, as well as proximity sensors(see: Meyer, sec[0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the EVCS with magnetometer, into the system of Lee, since this would have provided an accurate and comprehensive means of determining vehicle presence at a parking location.
Claim(s) 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al(Lee) in view of Papineau et al(Papineau), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wauldron(USPat. 9,990,850 B2).
-- With regards to claim 9, Lee does not teach:
1) the user application is further configured to allow owners of the plurality of parking spaces to list their available parking spaces to be reserved by other users searching for parking spaces through the user application.
Although not specifically taught by Lee, use of vehicle parking systems which utilize applications that allow owners to list their available parking spaces is well known. In related art, Wauldron teaches a system and method for parking management, wherein an application is utilized on a user device(200) by a menu option(208), which allows owners to register their space to be rented to others(see: Wauldron, column 5, lines 56 et seq; column 6, lines 1-5).
Since the use of apps which allow a user to list their parking space to be rented by others is well known, as taught by Wauldron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the application of Wauldron, which allows users to list their parking spaces, into the system of Lee, since this would have provided a more user friendly and comprehensive method of providing parking spaces to would be users in the system.
-- With regards to claim 10, Lee does not teach:
1) the user application further comprises information regarding public transportation in the area and is configured to assist the user in planning their journey using the public transportation after parking the vehicle at the reserved parking space.
Although not specifically taught by Lee, use of systems which assist a user in planning their journey using public transportation after parking a vehicle at a reserved spot is well known. In related art, Wauldron teaches a user device for finding featured parking, wherein spot indicators(302) near desired parking spaces are included in an interface output as amenity information pertaining to each spot indicator. The amenity indicators(302) include various amenities, including indicating proximity to public transportation(see: Wauldron, column 9, lines 1-18). This information would have readily provided assistance to a user for the purpose of determining the ability to user public transportation, in relation to a desired parking spot.
Since the use of amenity indicators(302) which provide information pertaining to public transportation which would have assisted a user in determining their journey in relation to a selected parking spot is well known, as taught by Wauldron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the spot indicator of Wauldron, into the device(145) of Lee, since this would have further enhanced the ability of the system of Lee to provide comprehensive information that would have enhanced the parking experience for a user of the system.
-- Claim 14 depends from claim 12, and substantially corresponds to the subject matter discussed in claim 10. Therefore, claim 14 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 10 and 12 above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al(Lee) in view of Papineau et al(Papineau), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edwards et al(USPat. 10,769,959 B2).
-- With regards to claim 11, Lee does not teach:
1) one or more modules configured to enable autonomous parking of the vehicles.
Lee, however, does teach that guidance information for guiding an incoming vehicle to a charging parking spot may be generated by the integrated management server(210), and transmitted to the user device(145)(see: Lee, sec[0014;0038]). Although not specifically taught by Lee, use of parking facilitation systems, which enable autonomous parking of vehicles in a system is well known. In related art, Edwards et al(Edwards) teaches a parking facilitation system, wherein a vehicle application chooses a parking spot to a navigation system(118), and an autonomous vehicle application for choosing the vehicle to the parking spot(see: Edwards, column 14, lines 62 et seq; column 15 lines 1-15).
Since Edwards teaches that autonomous guidance for vehicles seeking parking spaces is well known, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the navigation(118) and autonomous application of Edwards, into the system of Lee, since this would have facilitated guidance of vehicles to a parking spot, by allowing the vehicle to choose the parking location, thereby avoiding human error.
REMARKS:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the amended subject matter in claim 1. The examiner has introduced the prior art to Papineau, which teaches applicants newly amended claimed subject matter. The reasons as to why Papineau reads on the claimed subject matter have been recited in the art rejection above. In view of this, applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive.
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 DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686