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 .
Status of Claim(s)
This action is a non-final office action is response to application 18/635,415 filed on April 15, 2024. Claim(s) 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority filed in Korea on April 14, 2023, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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. 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 3D map generating unit configured to generate…,” in Claim 1.
“a 3D map generating unit configured to map…,” in Claim 2.
“a 3D map generating unit configured to notify…,” in Claim 3.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 recites an entity that is able
generate a map to locate a vehicle/moving object. Independent Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., insurance) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim 1 recite(s) “storing moving object information and three-dimensional (3D) modeling of each moving object of a set of moving objects,” “storing a first 3D map, wherein the first 3D map includes a 3D representation of a location map representing a place where the set of moving objects are located,” “find a selected moving object being matched with moving object information received and record a moving object location received in association with the selected moving object,” “generate a second 3D map by combining the 3D modeling of the selected moving object with the first 3D map,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim 5 recite(s) “receiving a management number of a moving object required to be moved and allocation lookup request,” “reading, location information on the moving object corresponding to the management number,” “generating, a movement route based on a worker location and based on the location information on the moving object,” “generating a 3D guide map by combining a movement route guide line along the movement route generate with a 3D map,” and “transmitting the 3D guide map,” step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim 7 recite(s) “receiving a first vehicle information and a first vehicle location,” “matching the first vehicle information with a first vehicle, wherein includes the first vehicle information among many vehicle information sets corresponding to many vehicles receptively,” “assigning the first vehicle to a first parking site corresponding to a nearest parking site among a set of parking sites for a storage parking lot based on the first vehicle location,” and “storing the first parking site being associated with the first vehicle,” step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7, are similar to an entity constructing a map that includes the location of the moving object. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a shipping mobility management system, a mobile-object information database, a 3D drawing database, a management server, and an outside terminal; Claim 5: a management server, a worker terminal, global positioning system, and a vehicle information database; and Claim 7:a first database and a second database) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “storing,” “storing,” “finding,” “generating,” “receiving,” “reading,” “generating,” “generating,” “transmitting,” “receiving,” “matching,” “assigning,” and “storing,” respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a shipping mobility management system, a mobile-object information database, a 3D drawing database, a management server, and an outside terminal; Claim 5: a management server, a worker terminal, global positioning system, and a vehicle information database; and Claim 7:a first database and a second database). Examiner, notes that the shipping mobility management system, mobile-object information database, 3D drawing database, management server, outside terminal, a worker terminal, global positioning system, vehicle information database, first database, and second database, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely storing, storing, finding, generating, receiving, reading, generating, generating, transmitting, receiving, matching, assigning, and storing, map information which is no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., storing and generating map information) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when generating map layouts merely reduce the work time for finding a desired vehicle, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0039, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of generating store layouts thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception. Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8-12, and 14-17: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8-12, and 14-17, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3: The additional limitation of “notifying,” “identifying,” and “providing,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 1. The 3D map generating unit, management server, and cameras are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “in response to another moving object different from the selected moving object being already located at the nearest alternative parking site, notify the nearest alternative parking site is taken,” “identify the selected moving object, find an actual location of the selected moving object,” and “provide the actual location of the selected moving object,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely notifying, identifying, and providing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 3 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13: The additional limitation of “searching,” and “identifying,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 7. The cameras are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot at the storage parking lot,” and “identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on the processing images,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely searching and identifying, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 13 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 8-17, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-17 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrell (CA-2851819 A1) in view of Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Burrell, teaches a shipping mobility management system, comprising:
a mobile-object information database storing moving object information and three-dimensional (3D ) modeling of each moving object of a set of moving objects. (Paragraph(s) 0039 and 0041)(Burrell teaches the system can store location data that represents the location of a car that the user has parked. The system also stores location data of the NFC tags that are located within the parking garages on various levels)
a 3D drawing database storing a first 3D map, wherein the first 3D map includes a 3D representation of a location map representing a place where the set of moving objects are located. (Paragraph 0041)(Burrell teaches a map server and/or local computer that stores map data that includes the layout or floor plan of the garage, floor, and levels of the garage (e.g., first map).
a 3D map generating unit configured to generate a second 3D map by combining the 3D modeling of the selected moving object with the first 3D map. (Paragraph(s) 0041-0042, 0044, and 0046) and (Fig. 8)(Burrell teaches the system can superimpose a multi-floor map (e.g., first 3D map) in window of the street map. The map information can show each of the parking floor levels along with the location of the vehicle. The map can also show a route for the user to travel to the parked vehicle. Burrell, also, teaches that the map can be a three-dimensional isometric map)
With respect to the above limitations: while Burrell teaches a system for storing location information, which can include vehicle and garage map level information. The system can then combine the multi-floor map with the street view map and display the location of the vehicle along with a route to a user. However, Burrell, doesn’t explicitly teach selecting a moving object being matched with moving object information.
But, Cohen et al. in the analogous art of parking, teaches a management server configured to find a selected moving object being matched with moving object information received from an outside terminal in the mobile-object information database, and to record in the mobile-object information database, a moving object location received from the outside terminal in association with the selected moving object. (Column 13, Lines 6-31)(Cohen et al. teaches the system will compare vehicle information entered to its database of vehicles currently parked in the lot and will return a match of a parked vehicle, which the system will then display a map with a route to a user)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, by incorporating the teachings of a system that compares vehicle information that is entered to its database of vehicles currently parked in the lot, which the system will then return a match of the parked vehicle of Cohen, with the motivation of providing guidance to finding a vehicle. (Cohen et al: Column 2, Lines 1-9)
Regarding Claim 4, Burrell/Cohen, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Burrell, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the outside terminal includes one of or both of the selected moving object and a worker terminal of a worker who moves the selected moving object.
But, Cohen in the analogous art of parking, teaches wherein the outside terminal includes one of or both of the selected moving object and a worker terminal of a worker who moves the selected moving object. (Column 13, Lines 6-30); (Column 20, Lines 54-67); and (Column 21, Lines 1-26)(Cohen et al. teaches a user can request to find my car (e.g., location lookup request), the user can also enter a license plate number (e.g., management number) to locate the exact space for a parked vehicle. Cohen, also, teaches that this can apply to a valet terminal or handheld device (e.g., worker terminal))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, by incorporating the teachings of a system that can use a valet terminal for finding a vehicle of Cohen, with the motivation of providing guidance to finding a vehicle. (Cohen et al: Column 2, Lines 1-9)
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrell (CA-2851819 A1) in view of Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Brooks et al. (US 2020/0272837 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Burrell/Cohen et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Burrell/Cohen et al., doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, in response to an error occurring between a selected parking site where the selected moving object should be stored among a plurality of parking sites and the moving object location received from the outside terminal the 3D map generating unit is configured to map the moving object location to a nearest alternative parking site among the plurality of parking sites.
But, Brooks et al. in the analogous art of parking, teaches wherein, in response to an error occurring between a selected parking site where the selected moving object should be stored among a plurality of parking sites and the moving object location received from the outside terminal the 3D map generating unit is configured to map the moving object location to a nearest alternative parking site among the plurality of parking sites. (Paragraph(s) 0073 and 0110); (Table’s 1 and 2)(Brooks et al. teaches a image system that includes a three-dimensional space. The system can create heatmaps, which the system can determine changes in vehicle information the system can compare two images to determine if the vehicles located in the parking spaces are the same or different. The system can analysis the images and determine that Car ID 2 is the same vehicle but has changed locations. The system will then update the images based on different times)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell and a system that can use a valet terminal for finding a vehicle of Cohen, by incorporating the teachings of determining changes in parked vehicles which the system can analysis and determine the vehicles are in different parked positions in a three-dimensional image of Brooks et al., with the motivation of improving the time to collect parking data. (Brooks et al.: Paragraph 0003)
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrell (CA-2851819 A1) in view of Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) and further in view of Brooks et al. (US 2020/0272837 A1), as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Stefik et al. (US 2012/0095812 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Burrell/Cohen/Brooks et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Burrell/Cohen et al./Brooks et al., doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, in response to another moving object different from the selected moving object being already located at the nearest alternative parking site, the 3D map generating unit is configured to notify the management server that the nearest alternative parking site is taken, and the management server is configured to identify the selected moving object using cameras, find an actual location of the selected moving object, and provide the actual location of the selected moving object to the 3D map generating unit.
But, Stefik et al. in the analogous art of parking, teaches wherein, in response to another moving object different from the selected moving object being already located at the nearest alternative parking site, the 3D map generating unit is configured to notify the management server that the nearest alternative parking site is taken, and the management server is configured to identify the selected moving object using cameras, find an actual location of the selected moving object, and provide the actual location of the selected moving object to the 3D map generating unit. (Paragraph(s) 0064, 0099, and 0102)(Stefik teaches a previous occupant in a parking space is late moving their vehicle. The system can assist the inconvenienced driver (e.g., selected moving object). The system can automatically reserve another available nearby parking space for the driver, which the parking space that normally requires a special permit can be booked for the inconvenienced driver. Stefik, further, teaches that Alice can be arriving to her parking space late and another vehicle can take her parking space. Prior to Alice seeing the message she arrives at her originally assigned spot that is now occupied. Alice can drive to a nearby parking space, which the system will then switch her reservation and update the reservation in a database. The system teaches that each of the parking devices include cameras which are used to reserve and determine the user’s identity for the parking space reservations)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, a system that can use a valet terminal for finding a vehicle of Cohen, and determining changes in parked vehicles which the system can analysis and determine the vehicles are in different parked positions in a three-dimensional image of Brooks et al., by incorporating the teachings of updating a driver’s parking status based on their original parking space being occupied, which the parking devices include cameras of Stefik et al., with the motivation of helping to determine parking availability and ensure parking regulation compliance. (Stefik et al.: Paragraph 0005)
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Geelen (US 2010/0211307 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cohen, teaches a shipping mobility management method comprising:
receiving, at a management server, a management number of a moving object required to be moved and a location lookup request, from a worker terminal. (Column 13, Lines 6-30); (Column 20, Lines 54-67); and (Column 21, Lines 1-26)(Cohen et al. teaches a user can request to find my car (e.g., location lookup request), the user can also enter a license plate number (e.g., management number) to locate the exact space for a parked vehicle. Cohen, also, teaches that this can apply to a valet terminal or handheld device (e.g., worker terminal))
reading, by the management server, location information on the moving object corresponding to the management number from a vehicle information database. (Column 5, Lines 12-30) and (Column 12, Lines 45-58)(Cohen et al. teaches a user can enter an identifier of the vehicle via a device and/or the parking lot cameras. The system can obtain the vehicle license information (e.g., management number) and the location of the vehicle via the license plate detection device)
generating, by the management server, a movement route based on a worker location using global positioning system (GPS) information received from the worker terminal and based on the location information on the moving object. (Column 13, Lines 31-62)(Cohen teaches the system can acquire the user’s smart phone location awareness to compute a route to the parking space of the vehicle. The system can also receive the parked vehicles spatial location)
transmitting the al. teaches a user trying to find a vehicle can receive a map along with the route to the vehicle via the users mobile device)
With respect to the above limitations: while Cohen teaches a user can enter and/or have a license plate entered into the system for finding a parked vehicle. The system can then provide a map to the user that includes a route to the vehicle. However, Cohen, doesn’t explicitly teach generating a 3D guide map by combining a movement route guide line along the movement route generated by the server and transmitting a 3D map.
But, Geelen in the analogous art of finding a parked vehicle, teaches
3D guide map. (paragraph 0037)(Geelen teaches a map can be three dimensional map)
generating a 3D guide map by combining a movement route guide line along the movement route generated by the management server with a 3D map. (Paragraph(s) 0004, 0037, 0045, 0096, and 0112-0114)(Geelen teaches the map can be a three dimensional map. Geelen, further, teaches when the user wants to navigate back to a parked car the device will then determine position data. The system will then compute a route and provide a route on a map from the user current location. The user can select a “find vehicle,” button. The route can be superimposed on the map)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system that compares vehicle information that is entered to its database of vehicles currently parked in the lot, which the system will then return a match of the parked vehicle. The system can then provide a map and route to the vehicle of Cohen, by incorporating the teachings of a three-dimensional map, which the map includes a route for finding the user’s parked vehicle of Geelen, with the motivation of easily finding the users parked vehicle. (Geelen: Paragraph 0133)
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Geelen (US 2010/0211307 A1), as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of Burrell (CA-2851819 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Cohen/Geelen, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 5.
However, Cohen/Geelen, do not explicitly teach further comprising generating the 3D guide map by combining the worker location and the location information of the moving object to be moved with the 3D map.
But, Burrell in the analogous art of parking, teaches further comprising generating the 3D guide map by combining the worker location and the location information of the moving object to be moved with the 3D map. Paragraph(s) 0039, 0041-0042, 0044, and 0046) and (Fig. 8)(Burrell teaches the system can store location data that represents the location of a car that the user has parked. The system also stores location data of the NFC tags that are located within the parking garages on various levels. The system also direct the user to the parking location based on the current location of the user. Burrell, further, teaches the system can superimpose a multi-floor map (e.g., first 3D map) in window of the street map. The map information can show each of the parking floor levels along with the location of the vehicle. The map can also show a route for the user to travel to the parked vehicle. Burrell, also, teaches that the map can be a three-dimensional isometric map)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system that compares vehicle information that is entered to its database of vehicles currently parked in the lot, which the system will then return a match of the parked vehicle. The system can then provide a map and route to the vehicle of Cohen and a three-dimensional map, which the map includes a route for finding the user’s parked vehicle of Geelen, by incorporating the teachings of a system that can receive vehicle and user location information, which, the system can then determine a map that includes route information for the user finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, with the motivation of helping a user find their vehicle. (Burrell: Paragraph 0002)
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Cohen, a vehicle storage management method comprising:
receiving a first vehicle information and a first vehicle location. Column 5, Lines 12-30) and (Column 12, Lines 45-58)(Cohen et al. teaches a user can enter an identifier of the vehicle via a device and/or the parking lot cameras. The system can obtain the vehicle license information (e.g., management number) and the location of the vehicle via the license plate detection device)
matching the first vehicle information with a first vehicle using a first database, wherein the first database includes the first vehicle information among many vehicle information sets corresponding to many vehicles respectively. (Column 13, Lines 6-31)(Cohen et al. teaches the system will compare information entered to its database of vehicles currently parked in the lot and will return a match of a parked vehicle, which the system will then display a map with a route to a user)
With respect to the above limitations: while Cohen teaches a user can enter and/or have a license plate entered into the system for finding a parked vehicle. The system can then provide a map to the user that includes a route to the vehicle. However, Cohen, doesn’t explicitly teach generating a 3D guide map by combining a movement route guide line along the movement route generated by the server and transmitting a 3D map.
But, Kotecha et al. in the analogous art of parking, teaches
assigning the first vehicle to a first parking site corresponding to a nearest parking site among a set of parking sites for a storage parking lot based on the first vehicle location. (Paragraph(s) 0032-0037)(Kotecha et al. teaches a parking space can be within a particular proximity of the requested location, such as being less than .1 miles away (e.g., nearest parking site). The system can then transmit the parking information to the user device, which is then selected)
storing the first parking site being associated with the first vehicle in a second database. (Paragraph 0038)(Kotecha et al. teaches that the system can update the database, which the system will update the parking space for the parking request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen, by incorporating the teachings of a providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., with the motivation of easily locate parking spots. (Kotecha et al.: Paragraph 0013)
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1) and further in view of Skinder et al. (US 9,080,878 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, Cohen et al./Kotecha at al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7.
However, Cohen e al./Kotecha et al., doesn’t explicitly teach
obtaining a worker terminal location using a first global positioning system (GPS) location from a GPS of a worker terminal.
transmitting the worker terminal location as the first vehicle location form the worker terminal to a management server.
But, Skinder et al. in the analogous art of locating a vehicle, teaches
obtaining a worker terminal location using a first global positioning system (GPS) location from a GPS of a worker terminal. (Column 4, Lines 1-14)(Skinder et al. teaches a user mobile device includes a GPS module for determining location)
transmitting the worker terminal location as the first vehicle location form the worker terminal to a management server. (Claim(s) 13 and 24)(Skinder et al. teaches a server can obtain the GPS sensor information from the mobile device. Skinder et al., further, teaches that the sensor information can be the location information of the mobile device. The electronic device can be a server, see Claim 15)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen and providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., by incorporating the teachings of transmitting location information of the vehicle from the mobile device of Skinder et al., with the motivation of improving user experience. (Skinder et al.: Column 24, Lines 12-18)
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1), as applied to Claim 8, and further in view of Yarnold et al. (US 2011/0215949).
Regarding Claim 9, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., do not explicitly teach
obtaining the first vehicle location using a first global positioning system (GPS) location from a GPS of the first vehicle.
transmitting the first vehicle location form the first vehicle to a management server.
But, Yarnold et al. in the analogous art of parking, teaches
obtaining the first vehicle location using a first global positioning system (GPS) location from a GPS of the first vehicle. (Paragraph 0014)(Yarnold et al. teaches a vehicle is able to receive signals form GPS satellites to use in determining its location. The vehicle deice processes location data from satellites into location information that includes latitude and longitude coordinates)
transmitting the first vehicle location form the first vehicle to a management server. (Paragraph 0014)(Yarnold et al. teaches a vehicle is able to receive signals form GPS satellites to use in determining its location. The vehicle device processes location data from satellites into location information that includes latitude and longitude coordinates. The vehicle device can transmit the coordinates to a central computer)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen and providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., by incorporating the teachings of a vehicle GPS system providing location information of Yarnold et al., with the motivation of ensuring unauthorized users can obtain the location of the vehicle. (Yarnold et al.: Paragraph 0029)
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1) and Yarnold et al. (US 2011/0215949), as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Motoyama (US 2009/0079591 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al./Yarnold et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 9.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al./Yarnold et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the transmitting of the first vehicle location is performed in response to a transmission system of the first vehicle changing from a non-park status to a park status.
But, Motoyama in the analogous art of parking, teaches wherein the transmitting of the first vehicle location is performed in response to a transmission system of the first vehicle changing from a non-park status to a park status. (Paragraph 0040)(Motoyama teaches that the vehicle can receive location information. Upon the vehicle engine shutting off, then the vehicle can transmit a signal indicating the present location of the vehicle is located in section A)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen, providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., and a GPS system providing location information of Yarnold et al., by incorporating the teachings of receiving vehicle information once the vehicle’s engine is off of Motoyama, with the motivation of helping a user return to a vehicle location. (Motoyama: Paragraph 0008)
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1) and further in view of Burrell (CA-2851819 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., doesn’t explicitly teach
generating a first three-dimensional (3D) representation of the first vehicle.
generating a first 3D map including a first 3D representation of the first vehicle placed at the first parking site.
transmitting the first 3D map to a worker terminal in a first configuration adapted to be displayed by the worker terminal.
But, Burrell in the analogous art of parking, teaches
generating a first three-dimensional (3D) representation of the first vehicle. (Paragraph(s) 0041-0042)(Burrell teaches a map server stores map layout information based on location information. The system can then determine an underground parking garage map that includes the location of a parked vehicle)
generating a first 3D map including a first 3D representation of the first vehicle placed at the first parking site. (Paragraph(s) 0041-0042 and 0048)(Burrell teaches the system can obtain location data for a parking area, which the system can determine a map based on a map server that stores map locally)
transmitting the first 3D map to a worker terminal in a first configuration adapted to be displayed by the worker terminal. (Paragraph 0042)(Burrell teaches displaying the underground parking map to a user device)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen and a providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., by incorporating the teachings of for providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, with the motivation of help a user to easily find their car. (Burrell et al.: Paragraph 0002)
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1) and further in view of Burrell (CA-2851819 A1) and further in view of Tucker et al. (US 9,041,556 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al./Burrell, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 11.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al./Burrell, do not explicitly teach
generating a first worker route from a first worker terminal location of the worker terminal to the first parking site based on the first 3D map.
generating a first worker route visual representation for the first worker route adapted to overlay on the first 3D map.
generating a second 3D map including the first 3D map combined with the first worker route visual representation.
transmitting the second 3D map to the worker terminal in a second configuration adapted to be displayed to the worker terminal.
But, Tucker et al. in the analogous art of locating a vehicle, teaches
generating a first worker route from a first worker terminal location of the worker terminal to the first parking site based on the first 3D map. (Column 15, Lines 27-51);(Column 20, Lines 1-24); and (Column 22, Lines 4-21)(Tucker et al. teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information)
generating a first worker route visual representation for the first worker route adapted to overlay on the first 3D map. (Column 15, Lines 27-51);(Column 20, Lines 1-24); and (Column 22, Lines 4-21)(Tucker et al. teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information. The system can also generate a visual representation, which includes a parking structure map (e.g., first 3D map). The route can be overlaid on the parking structure map)
generating a second 3D map including the first 3D map combined with the first worker route visual representation. (Column 15, Lines 27-51);(Column 20, Lines 1-24); and (Column 22, Lines 4-21)(Tucker et al. teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information. The system can also generate a visual representation, which includes a parking structure map (e.g., first 3D map). The route can be overlaid on the parking structure map. The system can then display the routing instructions along with the three-dimensional parking structure map (e.g., second 3D map))
transmitting the second 3D map to the worker terminal in a second configuration adapted to be displayed to the worker terminal. (Column 15, Lines 27-51);(Column 20, Lines 1-24); and (Column 22, Lines 4-21)(Tucker et al. teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information. The system can also generate a visual representation, which includes a parking structure map (e.g., first 3D map). The route can be overlaid on the parking structure map. The system can then display the routing instructions along with the three-dimensional parking structure map (e.g., second configuration))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen, a providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., and providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, by incorporating the teachings of determining a parking structure map, which the system can then generate a route for the map. The system will then overlay the route on the map, which will be displayed to a user of Tucker, with the motivation of accurately locate a vehicle. (Tucker et al.: Column 23, Lines 45-56)
Regarding Claim 15, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al./Burrell, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 11.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al./Burrell, do not explicitly teach wherein the first 3D map is a storage parking lot 3D representation of the storage parking lot.
But, Tucker et al. in the analogous art of locating a vehicle, teaches wherein the first 3D map is a storage parking lot 3D representation of the storage parking lot. (Column 5, Lines 19-40); and (Column 15, Lines 52-66)(Tucker et al. teaches a three-dimensional parking structure map for a parking location where av vehicle is stored (e.g., storage parking lot))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen, a providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., and providing a three-dimensional map with routing information to a user for finding a parked vehicle of Burrell, by incorporating the teachings of determining a parking structure map, which the system can then generate a route for the map. The system will then overlay the route on the map, which will be displayed to a user for where a vehicle is being stored of Tucker, with the motivation of accurately locate a vehicle. (Tucker et al.: Column 23, Lines 45-56)
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1), as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Zhu (US 2021/0133603 A1)
Regarding Claim 16, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the first database and the second database are at a same management server.
But, Zhu et al. in the analogous art of parking, teaches wherein the first database and the second database are at a same management server. (Paragraph 0012)(Zhu et al. teaches a server computer, which the server computer includes multiple databases such as a profile database and a parking location database)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen and a providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., by incorporating the teachings of a server database that includes multiple databases of Zhu et al., with the motivation of improving efficiency. (Zhu et al.: Paragraph 0003)
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1), as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Smith (US 10,977,727 B1).
Regarding Claim 17, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7.
However, Cohen et al./Kotecha et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the first database is a vehicle information database corresponding to manufactured vehicle database of a vehicle manufacturing facility.
But, Smith in the analogous art of storing vehicle information, teaches wherein the first database is a vehicle information database corresponding to manufactured vehicle database of a vehicle manufacturing facility. (Column 4, Lines 40-43 and 50-67); (Column 5, Lines 4-18 and 63-67)(Smith teaches vehicle information can refer to a vehicle manufacturer that provides data on the vehicle. The vehicle information can include trim, color, transmission, drive train, factory packages, and factory option information. The data can then be stored in a database)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system of a user entering an identifier of the vehicle and location information, which the system can compare the information with a match of a parked vehicle of Cohen and a providing a parking space that is closer to the vehicle location and then updating the database with the information of Kotecha et al., by incorporating the teachings of a vehicle database that include manufacture information of the vehicle, which the manufacturing information is stored into a database of Smith, with the motivation of accurately identifying a vehicle. (Smith: Column 1, Lines 37-62)
Novelty/Non-obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Dependent Claim(s) 13-14 are distinguished from the art.
Burrell (CA-2851819 A1). Burrell teaches the system can store location data that represents the location of a car that the user has parked. The system also stores location data of the NFC tags that are located within the parking garages on various levels. Burrell, also, teaches a map server and/or local computer that stores map data that includes the layout or floor plan of the garage, floor, and levels of the garage. Burrell, further, teaches the system can superimpose a multi-floor map in window of the street map. The map information can show each of the parking floor levels along with the location of the vehicle. The map can also show a route for the user to travel to the parked vehicle. Burrell, also, teaches that the map can be a three-dimensional isometric map. However, Burrell, doesn’t explicitly teach searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot using cameras at the storage parking lot and then identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on processing images form the cameras. Burrell, also, doesn’t explicitly teach generating for a second worker a route from the location of a first vehicle. The system will generate the route and overlay it on the first 3D map. The system will then combine the maps to then generate a third 3D map to display a third configuration on the worker terminal.
Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2). Cohen et al. teaches a system will compare vehicle information entered to its database of vehicles currently parked in the lot and will return a match of a parked vehicle, which the system will then display a map with a route to a user. However, Cohen et al., doesn’t explicitly teach searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot using cameras at the storage parking lot and then identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on processing images form the cameras. Cohen et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach generating for a second worker a route from the location of a first vehicle. The system will generate the route and overlay it on the first 3D map. The system will then combine the maps to then generate a third 3D map to display a third configuration on the worker terminal.
Geelen (US 2010/0211307 A1). Geelen teaches a map can be three dimensional map. Geelen, further, teaches the map can be a three dimensional map. Geelen, further, teaches when the user wants to navigate back to a parked car the device will then determine position data. The system will then compute a route and provide a route on a map from the user current location. The user can select a “find vehicle,” button. The route can be superimposed on the map. However, Geelen, doesn’t explicitly teach searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot using cameras at the storage parking lot and then identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on processing images form the cameras. Geelen, also, doesn’t explicitly teach generating for a second worker a route from the location of a first vehicle. The system will generate the route and overlay it on the first 3D map. The system will then combine the maps to then generate a third 3D map to display a third configuration on the worker terminal.
Stefik et al. (US 2012/0095812 A1). Stefik et al. teaches a previous occupant in a parking space is late moving their vehicle. The system can assist the inconvenienced driver. The system can automatically reserve another available nearby parking space for the driver, which the parking space that normally requires a special permit can be booked for the inconvenienced driver. Stefik et al., further, teaches that Alice can be arriving to her parking space late and another vehicle can take her parking space. Prior to Alice seeing the message she arrives at her originally assigned spot that is now occupied. Alice can drive to a nearby parking space, which the system will then switch her reservation and update the reservation in a database. The system teaches that each of the parking devices include cameras which are used to reserve and determine the user’s identity for the parking space reservations. However, Stefik et al., doesn’t explicitly teach searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot using cameras at the storage parking lot and then identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on processing images form the cameras. Stefik et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach generating for a second worker a route from the location of a first vehicle. The system will generate the route and overlay it on the first 3D map. The system will then combine the maps to then generate a third 3D map to display a third configuration on the worker terminal.
Brooks et al. (US 2020/0272837 A1). Brooks et al. teaches a image system that includes a three-dimensional space. The system can create heatmaps, which the system can determine changes in vehicle information the system can compare two images to determine if the vehicles located in the parking spaces are the same or different. The system can analysis the images and determine that Car ID 2 is the same vehicle but has changed locations. The system will then update the images based on different times. However, Brooks et al., doesn’t explicitly teach searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot using cameras at the storage parking lot and then identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on processing images form the cameras. Brooks et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach generating for a second worker a route from the location of a first vehicle. The system will generate the route and overlay it on the first 3D map. The system will then combine the maps to then generate a third 3D map to display a third configuration on the worker terminal. While Brooks is the closest prior art for Dependent Claim 13, however, it wouldn’t be obvious to combine Cohen et al. (US 9,594,956 B2) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0066545 A1) and further in view of Burrell (CA-2851819 A1) and further in view of Tucker et al. (US 9,041,556 B2) and further in view of Brooks et al. (US 2020/0272837 A1).
Tucker et al. (US 9,041,556 B2). Tucker et al. teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information). Tucker et al., also, teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information. The system can also generate a visual representation, which includes a parking structure map. The route can be overlaid on the parking structure map. Tucker et al., further, teaches routing instructions can be generated based on the current location and the parking location of the vehicle. The guidance instructions can include routing information. The system can also generate a visual representation, which includes a parking structure map. The route can be overlaid on the parking structure map. The system can then display the routing instructions along with the three-dimensional parking structure map. However, Tucker et al., doesn’t explicitly teach searching for the first vehicle in the storage parking lot using cameras at the storage parking lot and then identifying an actual location of the first vehicle in the storage parking lot based on processing images form the cameras. Tucker et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach generating for a second worker a route from the location of a first vehicle. The system will generate the route and overlay it on the first 3D map. The system will then combine the maps to then generate a third 3D map to display a third configuration on the worker terminal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628