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 .
This is a response to remarks filed on 11/21/25.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) (9-13) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey (10317913).
Regarding claims 9 and 11: Harvey discloses a vehicle determination device, for providing access to a vehicle, the vehicle determination device, comprising:
a processor (col. 7, lines34-43 of Harvey); and
a memory storing instructions that (col. 14, lines 24-31 of Harvey), when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle determination device, to:
receive a request signal, indicating a set of parameters of a desired vehicle; determine, from a first database, a plurality of candidate vehicles matching the set of parameters of the desired vehicle (col. 6, lines 7-14 of Harvey);
determine, from a second database, for each one of the candidate vehicles, a number of blocking vehicles blocking access to the respective candidate vehicle (col. 14, lines 31-42);
select the candidate vehicle with the fewest number of blocking vehicles (col. 14, lines 31-42 of Harvey); and
transmit a key release signal to an automated key cabinet to release a physical key for the selected vehicle and to release physical keys to any blocking vehicles that block access for the selected vehicle, to thereby provide access to the selected vehicle (col. 12, lines 43-67 of Harvey). Thus, Harvey disclosed a blocking vehicle access management system. Further, whether the key is physical or keyless for user’s accessing a vehicle, it is an obvious alternate access of the vehicle.
It would be obvious for artisan of the art to substitute an equivalent element of same feature(s). The rationale is as follows: an available of parts.
Regarding claims 10 and 12: wherein the instructions to determine the number of blocking vehicles comprise instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle determination device, to, for each one of the candidate vehicles: determine blocking parking bays that, if occupied, would block the respective candidate vehicle; and determine how many of the blocking parking bays are occupied with a vehicle (col. 12, lines 25-42 and col. 14, lines 19-42 of Harvey).
Regarding claim 13: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for providing access to a vehicle, the computer program comprising computer program code which, when executed on a vehicle determination device, causes the vehicle determination device, to: receive a request signal, indicating a set of parameters of a desired vehicle; determine, from a first database, a plurality of candidate vehicles matching the set of parameters of the desired vehicle; determine, from a second database, for each one of the candidate vehicles, a number of blocking vehicles blocking access to the respective candidate vehicle; select the candidate vehicle with the fewest number of blocking vehicles; and transmit a key release signal to an automated key cabinet to release a physical key for the selected vehicle and to release physical keys to any blocking vehicles that block access for the selected vehicle, to thereby provide access to the selected vehicle (col. 12, lines 43-67 and col. 14, lines 19-42 of Harvey). Thus, Harvey discloses computer product for blocked vehicle access.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bonander (10838414) and Watanabe et al (11023836) are cited for accessing the blocked vehicle(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. Wong whose telephone number is (571) 272-7566.
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, D. Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/K. WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689