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 .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/656,218 filed on 12/04/2025
Claims 1 – 9 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 – 5 have been amended. Claims 6 – 9 are new.
This action is made FINAL
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 states in line 8: “determine, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers”. The claim lacks clarity if the “more passengers” are the same or part of the “a passenger” in line 6.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2 – 9 are also objected as being dependent upon claim 1.
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:
“control unit configured to” in 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9, line 1 states a claim limitation of “a predicted congestion degree”. The specification however do not teach what a predicted congestion degree is. The specification states “predicting… the future congestion degree” as found in paragraphs 0020, 0021, 0023, 0024, 0037 and 0038, however a “future congestion degree” is not described to the same as the “predicted congestion degree” as stated within claim 9. The subject matter of “predicted congestion degree” within claim 9 will still be considered in making any prior art rejections as stated in MPEP Section 2163.06.
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.
Claims 7 – 9 are 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.
Claims 7 and 8 state: “when an event similar to an event scheduled” and claim 9 states: “a similar event in a previous year”, however it is indefinite to what a “similar event” or “similar to an event” is. For example, are two different sporting events at different times at the same locations classified as a “similar event”? The claim limitation of “similar” is unclear on what are the parameters have to be the same to classified as such.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speiser et al. (US 20130006464 A1), in view of Wu et al. (CN 115311888 A) and Subramanya et al. (AU 2014239914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Speiser teaches a control device comprising a control unit configured to: (Speiser: Paragraph 0008: “Additional embodiments include a computer storage medium, having computer-readable instructions stored thereon for performing a method of synchronizing traffic flow thereby reducing traffic congestion within a system roadway. The method includes receiving a route plan request from a vehicle indicating an entry point and a destination and generating one or more route plans based on the entry point and one or more exit points associated with the destination.”)
acquire information on congestion degrees of at least two booths in an area (Speiser: Paragraph 0009: “The methods may further comprise receiving a route plan request from a vehicle indicating an entry point and a destination and generating one or more route plans based on the entry point and one or more exit points associated with the destination. Thereafter, the one or more route plans may be prioritized based on a projected travel time from the entry point to the destination and a top priority route plan having the lowest projected travel time may be determined. According to alternative embodiments, the a route plan may be selected based on considerations in addition to, or other than, the lowest projected travel time.”; Paragraph 0061: “The central-command computers may then track the flow of the overall traffic and may schedule available actual time slots that a vehicle may occupy when it comes to an entry point, e.g., entry point 112. The central-command computers may also determine when a system vehicle 102 should accelerate to enter the system roadway 104 in order to merge into a designated actual time slot.”; Paragraph 0069: “In some embodiments, each entry station 108 may have one or more entry points 112. An entry point 112 may refer to the precise location from which a vehicle may be launched onto an adjacent system roadway 104.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to process multiple entry and exit points traffic data)
… where an event is held; (Speiser: Paragraph 0033: “The reader will understand that the technology described in the context of a computerized mass-transportation system could be adapted for use with other systems, such as computerized routing systems within neighborhoods, airports, theme parks, or other suitable locations.”)
… control autonomous driving of the vehicle along the determined transportation route to the booth (Speiser: Claim 1: “A method for synchronizing traffic flow thereby reducing traffic congestion within a system roadway comprising a plurality of roadways, comprising: receiving a re-route plan request from a vehicle under automated control traveling on a current system roadway, the re-route plan request indicating a new destination; guiding the vehicle off the current system roadway to a holding area associated with an entry point; maintaining automated control over the vehicle in the holding area;”)
In sum, Speiser teaches a control device comprising a control unit configured to: acquire information on congestion degrees of at least two booths in an area where an event is held; control autonomous driving of the vehicle along the determined transportation route to the booth. Speiser however does not teach at an event venue whereas Subramanya does.
Subramanya teaches at an event venue (Subramanya: Paragraph 000180: “For example, there may be one or more parking spaces near a busy commercial center or a sports arena, in a downtown area, or anywhere where there is parking demand and the spaces may go unused at a certain time.”,
Supplemental Note: a sports arena is interpreted as an event venue per the specification paragraph 0018)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Subramanya with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Speiser and Subramanya teach a parking management system for an event. Subramanya further describes its management system to be used for a sports arena. One with knowledge in the art would find the sports arena to be simple substitution with a theme park, an airport or any other suitable locations that Speiser teaches it’s parking management system to be used for. For example, both a sports arena and theme park are known to one with ordinary skill in the art and as taught by both Speiser and Subramanya to have high levels of congestion (Speiser: Claim 1)(Subramanya: Paragraph 000101). Thus a sports arena can be interpreted as a suitable location for Speiser’s parking management system as well and can be used to mitigate congestion levels as taught by Subramanya as well. Speiser in view of Subramanya however still do not teach determine a transportation route for a vehicle that moves between the at least two booths in the area to transport a passenger, based on the acquired information on the congestion degrees; determine, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to a booth of the at least two booths with a relatively lower congestion degree in comparison to congestion degrees at other booths of the at least two booths whereas Wu does.
Wu teaches determine a transportation route for a vehicle that moves between the at least two booths in the area to transport a passenger, based on the acquired information on the congestion degrees; (Wu: lines 40 – 53: “In order to achieve the above object, the embodiment of the first aspect of the present invention proposes a route guidance method for avoiding congestion in a parking lot, the method includes the following steps: obtaining coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to The information sets each intersection in the parking lot as a node, wherein a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; obtain the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot, so as to obtain the coordinate information according to the coordinate information Described induction screen and the virtual node of described exit on the corresponding channel road section; With the virtual node of described induction screen on the corresponding channel road section as starting point, the virtual node of described exit on the corresponding channel road section is as end point, so that traverse the parking lot The passage sections in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all starting points to the end points; obtain the congestion level corresponding to each passage section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level the path length; sending a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the guidance screen, so that the guidance screen can guide the vehicle according to the route strategy.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to create nodes within intersections, entrances and exits of a parking lot and then able to shortest route a vehicle out of the parking lot utilizing congestion information)
determine, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to a booth of the at least two booths with a relatively lower congestion degree in comparison to congestion degrees at other booths of the at least two booths; and (Wu: Lines 328 – 331: “It should be noted that planning guidance screens can be set at each key passage section in the parking lot, and each guidance screen can be guided by the corresponding optimal route strategy obtained by the above method; in addition, the exits in the parking lot can also be It can be set in multiples, which is not specifically limited in the present invention.”; Lines 334 – 347: “first obtain the coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to set each intersection in the parking lot as a node according to the coordinate information , wherein, a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; then the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot is obtained, so as to obtain the virtual node of the induction screen and the exit on the corresponding channel section according to the coordinate information; then the induction The virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the starting point, and the virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the end point, so as to traverse the channel section in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all start points to the end points; Then obtain the congestion level corresponding to each channel section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the path length of multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level; finally, send a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the induction screen, so that the induction screen Carry out route guidance for vehicles according to the route strategy; thus, it can avoid congested roads and leave the field in the shortest time or route, reducing the time the car owner stays in the parking lot, thereby improving the car owner's parking experience.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to route to multiple exits in a parking lot based on the congestion levels)
… with the relatively lower congestion degree. (Wu: Lines 334 – 347: “first obtain the coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to set each intersection in the parking lot as a node according to the coordinate information , wherein, a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; then the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot is obtained, so as to obtain the virtual node of the induction screen and the exit on the corresponding channel section according to the coordinate information; then the induction The virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the starting point, and the virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the end point, so as to traverse the channel section in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all start points to the end points; Then obtain the congestion level corresponding to each channel section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the path length of multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level; finally, send a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the induction screen, so that the induction screen Carry out route guidance for vehicles according to the route strategy; thus, it can avoid congested roads and leave the field in the shortest time or route, reducing the time the car owner stays in the parking lot, thereby improving the car owner's parking experience.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to route to multiple exits in a parking lot based on the congestion levels)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the teaching of Wu regarding routing through the different parking lot intersections, entrances and exits to find the optimal route to exit the lot with the vehicle system of Speiser. For example, Speiser teaches the ability of optimal vehicles routing to mitigation congestion when entering and leaving a location, thus being able to analyze all of the parameters as taught by Wu, the system of Speiser will improve its optimal vehicle routing capabilities. This will make sure all vehicles have an optimal route to leave the event, thus reducing traffic congestion.
Regarding claim 2, Speiser, as modified, teaches wherein the control unit acquires the information on the congestion degrees by observing current congestion degrees of the at least two booths. (Speiser: Paragraph 0058: “Additional embodiments include a computer storage medium, having computer-readable instructions stored thereon for performing a method of synchronizing traffic flow thereby reducing traffic congestion within a system roadway. The method includes receiving a route plan request from a vehicle indicating an entry point and a destination and generating one or more route plans based on the entry point and one or more exit points associated with the destination.”,
Supplemental Note: Per the specification paragraph 0018, a booth corresponds to each location within an event, thus interpreted as the entry points and one or more exit points)
Regarding claim 4, Speiser, as modified, does not teach wherein the control unit determines, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to the booth with the relatively lower congestion degree from among the at least two booths and transporting fewer passengers to at least one of the at least two booths with relatively higher congestion degree whereas Wu does.
Wu teaches wherein the control unit determines, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to the booth with the relatively lower congestion degree from among the at least two booths and (Wu: lines 40 – 53: “In order to achieve the above object, the embodiment of the first aspect of the present invention proposes a route guidance method for avoiding congestion in a parking lot, the method includes the following steps: obtaining coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to The information sets each intersection in the parking lot as a node, wherein a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; obtain the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot, so as to obtain the coordinate information according to the coordinate information Described induction screen and the virtual node of described exit on the corresponding channel road section; With the virtual node of described induction screen on the corresponding channel road section as starting point, the virtual node of described exit on the corresponding channel road section is as end point, so that traverse the parking lot The passage sections in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all starting points to the end points; obtain the congestion level corresponding to each passage section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level the path length; sending a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the guidance screen, so that the guidance screen can guide the vehicle according to the route strategy.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to create nodes within intersections, entrances and exits of a parking lot and able to shortest route a vehicle out of the parking lot utilizing congestion information. Per the specification paragraph 0018, a booth corresponds to each location within an event, thus interpreted as the entry points and one or more exit points)
transporting fewer passengers to at least one of the at least two booths with relatively higher congestion degree (Wu: Lines 376 – 386: “Wherein, the cloud platform 203 acquires the coordinate information corresponding to each crossing in the parking lot, so that each crossing in the parking lot is set as a node according to the coordinate information, wherein, a passage section is formed between two adjacent crossing nodes; The coordinate information of the induction screen 201 and the exit in the field, so that the virtual node of the induction screen 201 and the exit on the corresponding channel section is obtained according to the coordinate information; the virtual node of the induction screen 201 on the corresponding channel section is used as a starting point, and the exit is in the corresponding channel The virtual node on the road section is used as the end point so as to traverse the passage section in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all start points to the end points; the AI camera 202 obtains the corresponding congestion level of each passage section in the parking lot, so as to The cloud platform 201 calculates the path lengths of multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level; the cloud platform 201 sends a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the guidance screen 201, so that the guidance screen 201 can guide the vehicle according to the route strategy”; Lines 341 – 347: “Then obtain the congestion level corresponding to each channel section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the path length of multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level; finally, send a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the induction screen, so that the induction screen Carry out route guidance for vehicles according to the route strategy; thus, it can avoid congested roads and leave the field in the shortest time or route, reducing the time the car owner stays in the parking lot, thereby improving the car owner's parking experience.”; Lines: 401 – 405: “As an embodiment, the congestion level includes one-level unobstructed, two-level slow-moving and three-level congestion, wherein each congestion level corresponds to a channel length, and the path lengths of a plurality of passable route strategies are calculated according to the congestion level, including: The path length corresponding to each passable route strategy is obtained by summing up the channel lengths corresponding to congestion levels of all the passage segments included in a passable route strategy.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to work for multiple vehicles to route them along a path of least congestion. Each intersection is treated as a node and nodes are evaluated for their congestion level as described in greater detail within the citation above. This means vehicles can have different routes and since the system’s goal is to provide a route to vehicles with the least congestions, there will be a fewer number of vehicles that have a higher congestion route than vehicles that have lower congestion routes )
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated in claim 1, one with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the teaching of Wu regarding routing through the different parking lot intersections, entrances and exits to find the optimal route to exit the lot with the vehicle system of Speiser. For example, Speiser teaches the ability of optimal vehicles routing to mitigation congestion when entering and leaving a location, thus being able to analyze all of the parameters as taught by Wu, the system of Speiser will improve its optimal vehicle routing capabilities. This will make sure all vehicles have an optimal route to leave the event. The optimal route depending on the amount of congestion or amount of vehicles leaving the event will vary for each vehicle, therefore some vehicles will have shorter travel times than others. However this further improves the system of Speiser as the congestion levels are evaluated at a node to node level, thus larger congestion data is being evaluated and the calculated optimal route mitigates a large majority of the congestion versus the current parking management system of Speiser.
Regarding claim 5, Speiser teaches a control method comprising: acquiring, by a control unit, (Speiser: Paragraph 0008: “Additional embodiments include a computer storage medium, having computer-readable instructions stored thereon for performing a method of synchronizing traffic flow thereby reducing traffic congestion within a system roadway. The method includes receiving a route plan request from a vehicle indicating an entry point and a destination and generating one or more route plans based on the entry point and one or more exit points associated with the destination.”)
information on congestion degrees of at least two booths in an area (Speiser: Paragraph 0009: “The methods may further comprise receiving a route plan request from a vehicle indicating an entry point and a destination and generating one or more route plans based on the entry point and one or more exit points associated with the destination. Thereafter, the one or more route plans may be prioritized based on a projected travel time from the entry point to the destination and a top priority route plan having the lowest projected travel time may be determined. According to alternative embodiments, the a route plan may be selected based on considerations in addition to, or other than, the lowest projected travel time.”; Paragraph 0061: “The central-command computers may then track the flow of the overall traffic and may schedule available actual time slots that a vehicle may occupy when it comes to an entry point, e.g., entry point 112. The central-command computers may also determine when a system vehicle 102 should accelerate to enter the system roadway 104 in order to merge into a designated actual time slot.”; Paragraph 0069: “In some embodiments, each entry station 108 may have one or more entry points 112. An entry point 112 may refer to the precise location from which a vehicle may be launched onto an adjacent system roadway 104.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to process multiple entry and exit points traffic data)
… where an event is held; (Speiser: Paragraph 0033: “The reader will understand that the technology described in the context of a computerized mass-transportation system could be adapted for use with other systems, such as computerized routing systems within neighborhoods, airports, theme parks, or other suitable locations.”)
… controlling autonomous driving of the vehicle along the determined transportation route to the booth (Speiser: Claim 1: “A method for synchronizing traffic flow thereby reducing traffic congestion within a system roadway comprising a plurality of roadways, comprising: receiving a re-route plan request from a vehicle under automated control traveling on a current system roadway, the re-route plan request indicating a new destination; guiding the vehicle off the current system roadway to a holding area associated with an entry point; maintaining automated control over the vehicle in the holding area;”)
In sum, Speiser teaches a control method comprising: acquiring, by a control unit, information on congestion degrees of at least two booths in an area where an event is held; controlling autonomous driving of the vehicle along the determined transportation route to the booth. Speiser however does not teach at an event venue whereas Subramanya does.
Subramanya teaches at an event venue (Subramanya: Paragraph 000180: “For example, there may be one or more parking spaces near a busy commercial center or a sports arena, in a downtown area, or anywhere where there is parking demand and the spaces may go unused at a certain time.”,
Supplemental Note: a sports arena is interpreted as an event venue per the specification paragraph 0018)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Subramanya with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same function taught by Speiser in view of Subramanya and this rejected under the same pretenses. Speiser in view of Subramanya however still do not teach determine a transportation route for a vehicle that moves between the at least two booths in the area to transport a passenger, based on the acquired information on the congestion degrees; determine, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to a booth of the at least two booths with a relatively lower congestion degree in comparison to congestion degrees at other booths of the at least two booths whereas Wu does.
Wu teaches determining, by the control unit, a transportation route for a vehicle mobility that moves between the at least two booths in the area locations to transport a passenger, based on the acquired information on the congestion degrees; (Wu: lines 40 – 53: “In order to achieve the above object, the embodiment of the first aspect of the present invention proposes a route guidance method for avoiding congestion in a parking lot, the method includes the following steps: obtaining coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to The information sets each intersection in the parking lot as a node, wherein a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; obtain the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot, so as to obtain the coordinate information according to the coordinate information Described induction screen and the virtual node of described exit on the corresponding channel road section; With the virtual node of described induction screen on the corresponding channel road section as starting point, the virtual node of described exit on the corresponding channel road section is as end point, so that traverse the parking lot The passage sections in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all starting points to the end points; obtain the congestion level corresponding to each passage section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level the path length; sending a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the guidance screen, so that the guidance screen can guide the vehicle according to the route strategy.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to create nodes within intersections, entrances and exits of a parking lot and then able to shortest route a vehicle out of the parking lot utilizing congestion information)
determining, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to a booth of the at least two booths with a relatively lower congestion degree in comparison to congestion degrees at other booths of the at least two booths; and (Wu: Lines 328 – 331: “It should be noted that planning guidance screens can be set at each key passage section in the parking lot, and each guidance screen can be guided by the corresponding optimal route strategy obtained by the above method; in addition, the exits in the parking lot can also be It can be set in multiples, which is not specifically limited in the present invention.”; Lines 334 – 347: “first obtain the coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to set each intersection in the parking lot as a node according to the coordinate information , wherein, a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; then the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot is obtained, so as to obtain the virtual node of the induction screen and the exit on the corresponding channel section according to the coordinate information; then the induction The virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the starting point, and the virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the end point, so as to traverse the channel section in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all start points to the end points; Then obtain the congestion level corresponding to each channel section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the path length of multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level; finally, send a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the induction screen, so that the induction screen Carry out route guidance for vehicles according to the route strategy; thus, it can avoid congested roads and leave the field in the shortest time or route, reducing the time the car owner stays in the parking lot, thereby improving the car owner's parking experience.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to route to multiple exits in a parking lot based on the congestion levels)
… with the relatively lower congestion degree. (Wu: Lines 334 – 347: “first obtain the coordinate information corresponding to each intersection in the parking lot, so as to set each intersection in the parking lot as a node according to the coordinate information , wherein, a channel section is formed between two adjacent intersection nodes; then the coordinate information of the induction screen and the exit in the parking lot is obtained, so as to obtain the virtual node of the induction screen and the exit on the corresponding channel section according to the coordinate information; then the induction The virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the starting point, and the virtual node on the corresponding channel section is used as the end point, so as to traverse the channel section in the parking lot to find multiple passable route strategies from all start points to the end points; Then obtain the congestion level corresponding to each channel section in the parking lot, so as to calculate the path length of multiple passable route strategies according to the congestion level; finally, send a passable route strategy with the shortest path length to the induction screen, so that the induction screen Carry out route guidance for vehicles according to the route strategy; thus, it can avoid congested roads and leave the field in the shortest time or route, reducing the time the car owner stays in the parking lot, thereby improving the car owner's parking experience.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to route to multiple exits in a parking lot based on the congestion levels)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same function taught by Speiser in view of Wu and this rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speiser et al. (US 20130006464 A1), in view of Wu et al. (CN 115311888 A) and Subramanya et al. (AU 2014239914 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stolfus et al. (US 20150319093 A1) and Nakamura et al. (US 20240414127 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Speiser, as modified, does not teach wherein the control unit acquires information on the event, and acquires the information on the congestion degrees by predicting future congestion degrees of the at least two booths based on the acquired information on the event, and wherein the information on the event includes at least one of an event venue, time of the event, a number of participants at the event, or content of the event whereas Stolfus does.
Stolfus teaches wherein the control unit acquires information on the event, and (Stolfus: Paragraph 0005: “The traffic management module may be configured to determine alternate, or alternative, routes in cases of recurring (e.g., rush hours, scheduled events, etc.) and/or non-recurring (e.g., accidents, crashes, construction, maintenance, emergency situations, etc.) delays.”)
acquires the information on the congestion degrees by predicting future congestion degrees of the at least two booths based on the acquired information on the event, and (Stolfus: Paragraph 0115: “a detected traffic condition may have occurred at a first time having a first severity. As can be appreciated, the traffic condition may change over time, for example, by improving or worsening. This change in the traffic condition may be used by the traffic management module 108 and/or server to further refine predictive algorithms in identifying problematic traffic conditions at the onset of a detected traffic condition. Additionally or alternatively, the change in the traffic condition may be used by the traffic management module 108 and/or server to further refine predictive algorithms in ignoring minor traffic conditions at the onset of a detected traffic condition. It should be appreciated that alternative routing algorithms may be improved in real-time (e.g., while a traffic condition is occurring, etc.), in near-real-time, and/or in non-real-time (e.g., after a traffic condition has occurred, etc.). If it is determined that the traffic condition detected is the first instance of the traffic condition, the method 1200 may proceed to step 1228 and store the traffic condition and/or traffic system information in memory. This memory may be associated with the traffic management module 108 or any other memory associated with the traffic system 100.”; Paragraph 0116: “In the event that the traffic condition is determined to be a repeat event, the method 1200 may continue by determining whether there is any change in severity for the traffic condition (step 1220). The severity of a traffic condition may indicate that an event is improving, worsening, or remaining the same. For instance, a traffic condition may correspond to a construction project underway on a path, the project interrupting a normal flow of traffic for at least one section along the path. In this case, the severity of the traffic condition may be measured by determining any increase or decrease to traffic density, number of entities involved, or traffic speed, congestion in adjacent areas or sections, etc., from baseline measurements or thresholds. If no change in severity is determined, the method 1200 continues by storing traffic condition information in memory (step 1228). This information may include traffic condition information, traffic system information, entity information, location information, time information, any other information related to the traffic system or condition, and/or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, this information may be forwarded to a third party, governmental entity (e.g., law enforcement agency, federal institution, state organization, etc.), department (e.g., department of transportation, department of regulatory agencies, etc.), or other party. Additionally or alternatively, this information may be used in constructing transportation models, designing roadways, generating transportation reports, transportation and/or city planning, providing efficient and/or optimal routing alternatives for the traffic system 100, determining traffic control schemes, combinations thereof and the like.”),
Supplemental Note: the system is able to improve the algorithm in how it predicts future traffic conditions based on repeated scheduled events taking place and altering traffic at those times)
wherein the information on the event includes at least one of an event venue, time of the event, a number of participants at the event, or content of the event (Stolfus: Paragraph 0005: “The traffic management module may be configured to determine alternate, or alternative, routes in cases of recurring (e.g., rush hours, scheduled events, etc.) and/or non-recurring (e.g., accidents, crashes, construction, maintenance, emergency situations, etc.) delays.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Stolfus with a reasonable expectation of success. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the ability of Speiser vehicle system of being able to acquire information about a repeat event, gather traffic data at that time and use that data to improve the optimal routing alternatives in the future when that event repeats. This would improve the system of Speiser as it allows the system of Speiser to also take in event information and traffic information around the event time to improve its optimal routing for vehicles that mitigates congestion. For example, if one of the exits at the end of an event is historically more traffic heavy, an optimal route can be set to another exit instead.
Regarding claim 6, Speiser, as modified, does not teach wherein the information on the event includes at least one of the content of the event scheduled to be performed at each booth, or a schedule of an individual user whereas Nakamura does.
Nakamura teaches wherein the information on the event includes at least one of the content of the event scheduled to be performed at each booth, or a schedule of an individual user. (Nakamura: Paragraph 0015: “FIG. 1 is a hardware configuration diagram of an information processing system in a first embodiment. The information processing system includes a client device 10 and a server 11 communicably connected thereto regardless of wired or wireless connection.”; Paragraph 0016: “The client device 10 is assumed to be a PC, a smartphone, a car navigation system, a tablet terminal, a wearable terminal, a television, a signage terminal, an audio terminal that performs input and output by voice, or the like.”; Paragraph 0035: “Next, an application service in which links to information regarding a station and surrounding streets are collected regardless of the information category based on the “station” will be described. This service is not intended for stations of a single railway company, but for stations in the whole world or nationwide (or multiple) railway companies in the country where the service is operated. Note that, in the present invention, the specification describes for “stations” such as railroad stations (including stations and stops of trams, monorails, cable cars, ropeways, and the like) as a representative use case, but as long as it is a key point in traffic that can be represented by a specific geographical “point” rather than a “surface”, it may be a bus stop, a bus terminal, a road station, a service area, a motor pool, an airport, a port, a landmark of a sightseeing spot with a traffic terminal, or the like.”; Paragraph 0050: “A single station or a plurality of stations can be selected from the plurality of stations presented to the client device 10. When selected, as an information category with one selected station as a starting point, traffic information such as a timetable, transfer guidance, a map, and mobility (bus, taxi, car sharing, rental car, bicycle rental, motorcycle rental, or the like) related to the station, facility information of sightseeing, eating-out (gourmet), shopping, real estate, medical care, education, accommodation, and the like of the station and around the station, event information of the station and around the station, and further, a congestion degree, a tourism article, word-of-mouth, regional news, and municipality information, and facility information and event information desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, and the like that provide information and funds to the application service, and the like, are presented by each item.”,
Supplemental Note: the stations correspond to any key point in traffic, thus interpreted as a location, furthermore a booth per the specification paragraph 0018. The content of the station, such as event information and congestion degrees are acquired)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success. Nakamura teaches the ability to acquire event and congestion degree information for a specified station. The station would be a simple substitution with the entry or exit points as taught by Speiser to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a station by Nakamura is defined as a key point in traffic, which corresponds to the entry and exit points of a parking lot within an event as taught by Speiser. Furthermore, Nakamura teaches the ability to gather information about the event such as congestion degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this obvious to try to implement with the parking management system of Speiser as it now defines the congestion degrees of the entry and exit points (simple substitution with stations of Nakamura), thus able to better manage the vehicles trying to enter or exit the event.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speiser et al. (US 20130006464 A1), in view of Wu et al. (CN 115311888 A) and Subramanya et al. (AU 2014239914 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20240414127 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Speiser, as modified, does not teach wherein the information on the congestion degrees of the at least two booths is based at least in part on a congestion degree when an event similar to an event scheduled to be performed in each booth was performed in the past whereas Nakamura does.
Nakamura teaches wherein the information on the congestion degrees of the at least two booths is based at least in part on a congestion degree (Nakamura: Paragraph 0057: “Next, a description will be given regarding presentation in a case of a selected single station or plurality of stations and selecting one from candidates of a plurality of pieces of specific information displayed in each of traffic information such as a timetable, transfer guidance, a map, and mobility (bus, taxi, car sharing, rental car, bicycle rental, motorcycle rental, or the like) related to the station, facility information of sightseeing, eating-out (gourmet), shopping, real estate, medical care, education, accommodation, and the like of the station and around the station, event information of the station and around the station, and further, a congestion degree, a tourism article, word-of-mouth, regional news, and municipality information, and facility information and event information desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, and the like that provides information and funds to the application service, and the like, which are information categories selected therefrom.”)
when an event similar to an event scheduled to be performed in each booth was performed in the past. (Nakamura: Paragraph 0046: “Furthermore, the station may be selected and presented according to a past search history or selection history of the user who uses stations. Furthermore, a station desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, or the like that provides information or funds to the application service may be presented in a part of the selective display. A picture of a scenery of a sightseeing spot around the station or a dish of a restaurant around the station may be presented together with character information of a few words (high-quality beneficial information, unexpected pleasant information, or the like) on the line of the “station” to be guided.”,
Supplemental Note: if a user has been to the event in the past, the event is stored as selection history for the user. This means the system gathering congestion degree information of the station (interpreted as booths) of the past)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 6, Nakamura teaches the ability to acquire event and congestion degree information for a specified station. The station would be a simple substitution with the entry or exit points as taught by Speiser to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a station by Nakamura is defined as a key point in traffic, which correspond to the entry and exit points of a parking lot within an event as taught by Speiser. Nakamura also teaches the ability to gather information about the event such as congestion degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this obvious to try to implement with the parking management system of Speiser as it now defines the congestion degrees of the entry and exit points (simple substitution with stations of Nakamura), thus able to better manage the vehicles trying to enter or leave the event. Furthermore, Nakamura teaches the ability of being able to have previous recollection of a user going to a station in the past. This function would also be obvious to try to implement with the parking management system of Speiser as if, for example, an exit point in the past having more congestion can be identified and taken into account when routing the vehicle at a later time. This would help mitigate the user experiencing congestion at a later time as the parking management system can determine another exit point to take with lower congestion degrees.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speiser et al. (US 20130006464 A1), in view of Wu et al. (CN 115311888 A) and Subramanya et al. (AU 2014239914 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20240414127 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Speiser does not teach wherein the information on the congestion degrees of the at least two booths is based at least in part on a congestion degree when an event similar to an event scheduled to be performed in each booth was performed in the past whereas Nakamura does.
Nakamura teaches wherein the information on the congestion degrees of the at least two booths is based at least in part on a congestion degree (Nakamura: Paragraph 0057: “Next, a description will be given regarding presentation in a case of a selected single station or plurality of stations and selecting one from candidates of a plurality of pieces of specific information displayed in each of traffic information such as a timetable, transfer guidance, a map, and mobility (bus, taxi, car sharing, rental car, bicycle rental, motorcycle rental, or the like) related to the station, facility information of sightseeing, eating-out (gourmet), shopping, real estate, medical care, education, accommodation, and the like of the station and around the station, event information of the station and around the station, and further, a congestion degree, a tourism article, word-of-mouth, regional news, and municipality information, and facility information and event information desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, and the like that provides information and funds to the application service, and the like, which are information categories selected therefrom.”)
when an event similar to an event scheduled to be performed in each booth was performed in the past (Nakamura: Paragraph 0046: “Furthermore, the station may be selected and presented according to a past search history or selection history of the user who uses stations. Furthermore, a station desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, or the like that provides information or funds to the application service may be presented in a part of the selective display. A picture of a scenery of a sightseeing spot around the station or a dish of a restaurant around the station may be presented together with character information of a few words (high-quality beneficial information, unexpected pleasant information, or the like) on the line of the “station” to be guided.”,
Supplemental Note: if a user has been to the event in the past, the event is stored as selection history for the user. This means the system gathering congestion degree information of the station (interpreted as booths) of the past)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as both state the same function taught by Speiser in view of Nakamura and this rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speiser et al. (US 20130006464 A1), in view of Wu et al. (CN 115311888 A) and Subramanya et al. (AU 2014239914 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20240414127 A1) and Baughman et al. (US 20150288573 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Speiser, as modified, does not teach wherein a predicted congestion degree for a booth of the at least two booths whereas Nakamura does.
Nakamura teaches wherein a predicted congestion degree for a booth of the at least two booths (Nakamura: Paragraph 0057: “Next, a description will be given regarding presentation in a case of a selected single station or plurality of stations and selecting one from candidates of a plurality of pieces of specific information displayed in each of traffic information such as a timetable, transfer guidance, a map, and mobility (bus, taxi, car sharing, rental car, bicycle rental, motorcycle rental, or the like) related to the station, facility information of sightseeing, eating-out (gourmet), shopping, real estate, medical care, education, accommodation, and the like of the station and around the station, event information of the station and around the station, and further, a congestion degree, a tourism article, word-of-mouth, regional news, and municipality information, and facility information and event information desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, and the like that provides information and funds to the application service, and the like, which are information categories selected therefrom.”)
… a predicted congestion degree for the booth (Nakamura: Paragraph 0057: “Next, a description will be given regarding presentation in a case of a selected single station or plurality of stations and selecting one from candidates of a plurality of pieces of specific information displayed in each of traffic information such as a timetable, transfer guidance, a map, and mobility (bus, taxi, car sharing, rental car, bicycle rental, motorcycle rental, or the like) related to the station, facility information of sightseeing, eating-out (gourmet), shopping, real estate, medical care, education, accommodation, and the like of the station and around the station, event information of the station and around the station, and further, a congestion degree, a tourism article, word-of-mouth, regional news, and municipality information, and facility information and event information desired to be guided by a company, a municipality, and the like that provides information and funds to the application service, and the like, which are information categories selected therefrom.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 6 as both state the same function taught by Speiser in view of Nakamura and this rejected under the same pretenses. Speiser in view of Nakamura however still do not teach on a first day of the event is based on a number of visitors or registered persons at a similar event in a previous year, and on and after the second day of the event is corrected based on an actual number of visitors or registered persons on the first day of the event whereas Baughman does.
Baughman teaches on a first day of the event is based on a number of visitors or registered persons at a similar event in a previous year, and (Baughman: Paragraph 0019: “Sporting event websites and project servers are good candidates to be hosted on a cloud due to the seasonal nature of the events. For example, major sporting event websites typically have a low amount traffic demand (e.g., website visits, views, etc.) for a majority of each year and a high amount of traffic demand for a short time period, e.g., one or two weeks, within each year. There may also be very large fluctuations in traffic demand, and thus computing and network demand, during the short time period of the events. It is thus advantageous for such systems to be easily provisioned for reacting quickly to demand changes. Accordingly, aspects of the invention involve generating a predictive model for predicting demand on network resources and allocating network resources based on the predicted demand. In embodiments, the predictive model is a hybrid model that combines historical forecasting and event forecasting. In embodiments, the predictive model is generated using hyperparameter selection and evolutionary algorithm techniques.”; Paragraph 0068: “Still referring to FIG. 5, historical forecasting 125 may involve statistical and data mining analytics used to predict cyclical forecasts. In embodiments, cyclical forecasts are website demand forecasts that are based on historical data that is associated with a relatively long period of time extending from the present backward into the past (e.g., a year or more), and event forecasts are website demand forecasts that are based on real time data that is being generated with respect to current events. As a simplified illustrative example, historical forecasting may involve a numerical model that utilizes daily website demand for a particular sporting event website over the past ten years to generate a predicted daily demand for that website for the upcoming year.”,
Supplemental Note: the historical forecasting receives data from website visits around the time of an event. The forecasting can predict daily demand or demand in the past 10 years. This in combination with Speiser can be used to determine the congestion degree of an event based on the number of visitors on the website of the event)
… on and after the second day of the event is corrected based on an actual number of visitors or registered persons on the first day of the event. (Baughman: Paragraph 0019: “Sporting event websites and project servers are good candidates to be hosted on a cloud due to the seasonal nature of the events. For example, major sporting event websites typically have a low amount traffic demand (e.g., website visits, views, etc.) for a majority of each year and a high amount of traffic demand for a short time period, e.g., one or two weeks, within each year. There may also be very large fluctuations in traffic demand, and thus computing and network demand, during the short time period of the events. It is thus advantageous for such systems to be easily provisioned for reacting quickly to demand changes. Accordingly, aspects of the invention involve generating a predictive model for predicting demand on network resources and allocating network resources based on the predicted demand. In embodiments, the predictive model is a hybrid model that combines historical forecasting and event forecasting. In embodiments, the predictive model is generated using hyperparameter selection and evolutionary algorithm techniques.”; Paragraph 0068: “Still referring to FIG. 5, historical forecasting 125 may involve statistical and data mining analytics used to predict cyclical forecasts. In embodiments, cyclical forecasts are website demand forecasts that are based on historical data that is associated with a relatively long period of time extending from the present backward into the past (e.g., a year or more), and event forecasts are website demand forecasts that are based on real time data that is being generated with respect to current events. As a simplified illustrative example, historical forecasting may involve a numerical model that utilizes daily website demand for a particular sporting event website over the past ten years to generate a predicted daily demand for that website for the upcoming year.”,
Supplemental Note: the historical forecasting receives data from website visits around the time of an event. The forecasting can predict daily demand or demand in the past 10 years. This in combination with Speiser can be used to determine the congestion degree of an event based on the number of visitors on the website of the event)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Speiser with the teachings of Baughman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the historical forecasting function of Baughman with the parking management system of Speiser. Speiser teaches utilizing it’s parking management system to mitigate congestion at the entry and exit points. Being able to gather data about how many people visited an event’s website as taught by Baughman, can aid in determining the congestion for the event itself and in-turn the congestion at the entry and exit points. This improves the congestion mitigation process of the parking management system of Speiser as it is able to estimate the number of people potentially visiting the event (congestion degree) and thus able to better route the vehicles entering and exiting the event.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 101 of the REMARKS, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections for claims 1 – 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections for claims 1 – 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103 of the REMARKS, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections for claims 1 – 5 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant states the amended limitation of claim 1: “acquire information on congestion degrees of at least two booths in an area at an event venue where an event is held” are not taught by the prior art of Speiser, Wu, or Jones as they refer to vehicle guidance in parking lots or public roads. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specifications state equivalents of events including exhibitions, trade fairs, food events, or product exhibitions, an example of a event venue such as an arena and a booth corresponds to each location within the event (Specification: Paragraph 0018). Speiser teaches its parking management system to be used to route vehicles within neighborhoods, airports, theme parks, or other suitable locations (Speiser: Paragraph 0033), thus interpreted as an event. Therefore, the entry and exit points of the parking lot at the event are interpreted as two locations, thus interpreted as a location within the event. Examiner however does agree that Speiser, Wu, nor Jones teach an event venue such as an arena. However with further search and consideration, the prior art of Subramanya is used to teach this limitation. Please see rejection above.
Applicant further states the prior art does not teach the amended claim limitation of “determine, as the transportation route, a route for transporting more passengers to a booth of the at least two booths with a relatively lower congestion degree in comparison to congestion degrees at other booths of the at least two booths; and control autonomous driving of the vehicle along the determined transportation route to the booth with the relatively lower congestion degree.”. The applicant however, does not state specific arguments where the prior art of Speiser, Wu, or Jones do not teach the amended claim limitations. Therefore the arguments are moot. Please see rejection above for the cited sections of Speiser in view of Wu that teach the amended claim limitations.
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 SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665