DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
2. Claims 1-18 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding 103(a) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues the that Homutescu fails to teach a vehicle with an internal combustion engine wherein fuel consumption consumed to move to the surrounding parking lot is included in the preset parking lot cost function. Examiner agrees that Homutescu discloses a solution for managing a parking space based on current parameters being optimized by a vehicles fuel consumption. Under BRI, Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s arguments as the reference discloses that a score is used to determine a candidate parking lot. However, for the sake of moving forward with prosecution, Examiner brings forth a new reference Yanagida, in which explicitly discloses incorporation of fuel consumption into a cost function in which is indicating a cost involved in going to a nearby parking lot. A new rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 non-obviousness.
6. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyster (US 20180313661) in view of Choi (US 20180373249) in further view of Yanagida (US 20190195640).
Regarding Claim 1, Eyster discloses A method of recommending parking lots to a driver using automatic parking, the method comprising: (Eyster, see at least [Abstract] wherein the mobile computing device is used to find parking garage for a vehicle.)
an update process of generating a list of candidate parking lots among parking lots around a current location of the driver based on driver-related information and vehicle-related information; (Eyster, see at least [0012] wherein the request for parking availability can include user preferences such as parking cost, distance to the destination, and safety. Also see [0050-0051] wherein the request at least includes destination of the user, parking preference criteria, and an estimated time of arrival. The time of arrival can be computed by the navigation app based on coordinates of the user derived from the GP of the device.)
a recommendation process of classifying information about the candidate parking lots included in the list of candidate parking lots according to at least one of requirements of the driver or the vehicle-related information and providing the information to the driver; (Eyster, see at least [0056] wherein the user preferences are used to transmit a request for parking with the relevant information (user preferences), and then based on user preferences and other parameters are used to weight parking recommendations, and then parking recommendations are given to the driver.)
wherein the update process includes updating a preset parking lot cost function, wherein the preset parking lot cost function is a function of one or more of the vehicle- related information, parking fee, distance to a surrounding parking lot, travel time to the surrounding parking lot, congestion in the surrounding parking lot, availability of indoor and outdoor parking, or availability of additional services, (Eyster, see at least [0012] wherein the request for parking availability can include user preferences such as parking cost, distance to the destination, and safety.)
Eyster does not explicitly disclose and a destination setting process of setting the parking lot selected by the driver as a destination of a vehicle, and causing the vehicle to autonomously drive toward the destination and to perform automatic parking at the destination.
However, Choi discloses and a destination setting process of setting the parking lot selected by the driver as a destination of a vehicle, and causing the vehicle to autonomously drive toward the destination and to perform automatic parking at the destination. (Choi, see at least [Claim 1] “the autonomous driving based on the destination information and the first parking selection information, wherein the autonomous driving includes movement of the autonomous vehicle to a first position corresponding to the destination information and the first parking selection information.”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyster to include the technique of selecting parking information for a vehicle and based on the destination information and parking selection, the autonomous vehicle is controlled corresponding to the destination information and parking selection as taught by Choi with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system in Eyster to generate a list of candidate parking lots among a current location of the driver and control a vehicle based on selected parking locations and destination information, and therefore improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
Eyster does not explicitly disclose and wherein when the vehicle is an internal combustion engine vehicle, fuel consumption consumed to move to the surrounding parking lot is included in the preset parking lot cost function.
However, Yanagida discloses and wherein when the vehicle is an internal combustion engine vehicle, fuel consumption consumed to move to the surrounding parking lot is included in the preset parking lot cost function. (Yanagida, see at least [0012] and [0066] wherein the information indicating cost can include a value indicating the amount of consumption of energy required to move the vehicle from a location to the parking lot of each candidate. The amount of energy consumption is the amount of fuel, such as gasoline, or the amount of power consumption of a secondary battery – depending on the type of vehicle. ** gasoline vehicles have an internal combustion engine)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyster to include the technique of using consumption energy and parking fees into a cost for traveling to a parking location, as taught by Yanagida with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system in Eyster to generate a list of candidate parking lots among a current location of the driver and control a vehicle based on selected parking locations and destination information, and therefore improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
Regarding Claim 4, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 1, (see rejection above)
Eyster further discloses wherein the additional services include at least one of car wash service or maintenance service. (Eyster, see at least [0048] wherein a space with a electrical supply connection for a hybrid car is requested)
Regarding Claim 5, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 1, (see rejection above)
Eyster further discloses wherein when the vehicle is an electric vehicle, electric vehicle charging fee is included in the preset parking lot cost function. (Eyster, see at least [0048] “a particular type of parking space the requestor is looking for, such as a space having an electrical supply connection for a hybrid car, or a space with an associated cost tier.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 5, (see rejection above)
Eyster further discloses wherein an electric vehicle charging method is included in the preset parking lot cost function as a function. (Eyster, see at least [0048] “a particular type of parking space the requestor is looking for, such as a space having an electrical supply connection for a hybrid car, or a space with an associated cost tier.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 1, (see rejection above)
Eyster further discloses wherein the recommendation process includes sorting the list of candidate parking lots according to a result of the preset parking lot cost function. (Eyster, see at least [0055] wherein a parking management server can evaluate user preferences and other information to generate a score for each parking area. Also see [0056] where multiple parking garages can be offered in order of decreasing score.)
Regarding Claim 8, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: (see rejection above)
Eyster further discloses assigning, by the preset parking lot cost function, weight to at least one of the vehicle-related information or the requirements of the driver according to a selection of the driver. (Eyster, see at least [0055] wherein a parking management server can evaluate user preferences and other information to generate a score for each parking area. Also see [0056] where multiple parking garages can be offered in order of decreasing score.)
Regarding Claim 10, Eyster discloses An apparatus comprising: at least one memory in which instructions are stored; and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, by executing the instructions: (Eyster, see at least [0024-0026] wherein a memory is used which stores various program instructions.)
generate a list of candidate parking lots among parking lots around a current location of a driver based on driver-related information and vehicle-related information, (Eyster, see at least [0012] wherein the request for parking availability can include user preferences such as parking cost, distance to the destination, and safety. Also see [0050-0051] wherein the request at least includes destination of the user, parking preference criteria, and an estimated time of arrival. The time of arrival can be computed by the navigation app based on coordinates of the user derived from the GP of the device.)
classify information about the candidate parking lots included in the list of candidate parking lots according to at least one of requirements of the driver or the vehicle-related information, provide the information to the driver, (Eyster, see at least [0056] wherein the user preferences are used to transmit a request for parking with the relevant information (user preferences), and then based on user preferences and other parameters are used to weight parking recommendations, and then parking recommendations are given to the driver.)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to update a preset parking lot cost function, wherein the preset parking lot cost function is a function of one or more of the vehicle- related information, parking fee, distance to a surrounding parking lot, travel time to the surrounding parking lot, congestion in the surrounding parking lot, availability of indoor and outdoor parking, or availability of additional services, (Eyster, see at least [0012] wherein the request for parking availability can include user preferences such as parking cost, distance to the destination, and safety. Also see [0052] wherein cost may be included in parking preference criteria in which can be customized by the user.)
Eyster does not explicitly disclose and set the parking lot selected by the driver as a destination of a vehicle, and cause the vehicle to autonomously drive toward the destination and perform automatic parking at the destination
However, Choi discloses and set the parking lot selected by the driver as a destination of a vehicle, and cause the vehicle to autonomously drive toward the destination and perform automatic parking at the destination (Choi, see at least [Claim 1] “the autonomous driving based on the destination information and the first parking selection information, wherein the autonomous driving includes movement of the autonomous vehicle to a first position corresponding to the destination information and the first parking selection information.”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyster to include the technique of selecting parking information for a vehicle and based on the destination information and parking selection, the autonomous vehicle is controlled corresponding to the destination information and parking selection as taught by Choi with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system in Eyster to generate a list of candidate parking lots among a current location of the driver and control a vehicle based on selected parking locations and destination information, and therefore improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
Eyster does not explicitly disclose and wherein when the vehicle is an internal combustion engine vehicle, fuel consumption consumed to move to the surrounding parking lot is included in the preset parking lot cost function.
However, Yanagida discloses and wherein when the vehicle is an internal combustion engine vehicle, fuel consumption consumed to move to the surrounding parking lot is included in the preset parking lot cost function. (Yanagida, see at least [0012] and [0066] wherein the information indicating cost can include a value indicating the amount of consumption of energy required to move the vehicle from a location to the parking lot of each candidate. The amount of energy consumption is the amount of fuel, such as gasoline, or the amount of power consumption of a secondary battery – depending on the type of vehicle. ** gasoline vehicles have an internal combustion engine)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyster to include the technique of using consumption energy and parking fees into a cost for traveling to a parking location, as taught by Yanagida with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system in Eyster to generate a list of candidate parking lots among a current location of the driver and control a vehicle based on selected parking locations and destination information, and therefore improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
As per claims 13-17, the claims are directed towards an apparatus that recites similar limitations performed by the method of recommending parking lots to a driver using automatic parking of claims 4-8. The cited portions of Eyster, Shao, and Choi used in the rejection of claims 4-8 teach the same limitations of claims 13-17. Therefore, claims 13-17 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 4-8 as outlined above.
7. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyster (US 20180313661) in view of Shao (US 20230060713) in further view of Choi (US 20180373249) in furthest view of Bandi (US 20240153381).
Regarding Claim 9, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising, (see rejection above)
Eyster does not explicitly disclose when the driver does not select parking lot: causing the vehicle to drive around the current location of the driver; or expanding a search range from the current location of the driver; and recommending another parking lot through the update process.
However, Bandi discloses when the driver does not select parking lot: causing the vehicle to drive around the current location of the driver; or expanding a search range from the current location of the driver; and recommending another parking lot through the update process. (Bandi, see at least [0060] wherein a vehicle is sent a location for a parking lot away from traffic to allow for a stop, if the location is not accepted, the search is expanded and a suitable location is re-searched.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyster to include the technique of expanding a search for a suitable stopping location when a chosen location is not accepted by a driver as taught by Bandi with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system in Eyster to expand a search for nearby parking lots when the driver does not select a parking lot provided and therefore would improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
As per claims 18, the claims are directed towards an apparatus that recites similar limitations performed by the method of recommending parking lots to a driver using automatic parking of claims 9. The cited portions of Eyster, Shao and Bandi used in the rejection of claims 9 teach the same limitations of claims 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 9 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170316690 – There are systems and methods for estimating and communicating parking lot utilization for parking lots comprising receiving a parking prediction request at a first time comprising obtaining parking lot capacity, identifying associated buildings, determining a first set of potential parkers at the first time based on the associated buildings, obtaining a set of arrived parkers and an arrived parkers count from parking gate pass readers and subtracting an arrived parkers count from the parking lot capacity, getting, from the class server, a likely departing parkers count from the set of arrived parkers and adding the likely departing parkers count to the parking lot capacity and estimating a likely entering parkers count and adding the likely entering parkers count to the parking lot capacity and disseminating the set of parking lot utilizations.
US 20220358841– A method for managing parking spaces for vehicles, which spaces are located in a geographical area and are associated with a controller, configured to allocate one or more parking characteristics to said spaces, the method including collection and storage of historical navigation data of identified vehicles and/or of identified drivers, statistical analysis of said stored data to predict the use of the spaces by the identified vehicles and/or the identified drivers, and modification of one or more parking characteristics allocated by the controller according to predicted space use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights