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 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims have overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 101 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
5. Regarding 103(a) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered. Examiner agrees previous prior art does not teach the amended claim, however, Examiner brings forth a new reference, Choi, in which teach the amended claims. A new rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 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 Shao (US 20230060713) in further view of Choi (US 20180373249).
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.)
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.)
Eyster does not explicitly disclose 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;
However, Shao in which is directed to providing a method for recommending a parking lot discloses 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; discloses (Shao, see at least [0039-0043] wherein the user request may include at least a current vehicle location, and determines candidate parking lots based on the received information from the user)
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 providing candidate parking lots based on received information from the user such as a current location of the driver as taught by Shao 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 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 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the update process includes (see rejection above)
Eyster further discloses updating a preset parking lot cost function, and 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 [0062] wherein if a person wants to park but is interested in spaces that are cheap, the user’s preferences can be updated to make sure that only spots the driver are almost guaranteed to get are suggested to get (avoid accidents/congestion).)
Regarding Claim 4, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 2, (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 2, (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 2, (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 2, 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.)
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.)
and set the parking lot selected by the driver as a destination of a vehicle. (Eyster, see at least [0056] wherein after a user selects an option, the navigation app can provide directions to the selected parking garage.)
Eyster does not explicitly disclose 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,
However, Shao in which is directed to providing a method for recommending a parking lot discloses 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, (Shao, see at least [0039-0043] wherein the user request may include at least a current vehicle location, and determines candidate parking lots based on the received information from the user)
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 providing candidate parking lots based on received information from the user such as a current location of the driver as taught by Shao 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 therefore improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
As per claims 11, and 12-17, 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 2, 4-8. The cited portions of Eyster, Shao, and Choi used in the rejection of claims 2, 4-8 teach the same limitations of claims 11, and 13-17. Therefore, claims 11, and 13-17 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 2, 4-8 as outlined above.
8. Claims 3 and 12 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 Homutescu (US 20190272753).
Regarding Claim 3, Eyster in view of Shao in further view of Choi discloses The method of claim 2, (see rejection above)
Eyster does not explicitly disclose 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, Homutescu discloses 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. (Homutescu, see at least [0048] wherein the parking assistance system may provide that the parameter that is optimized is overall fuel consumption of an individual car)
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 utilizing overall fuel consumption of a vehicle as a parameter to be utilized by the parking assistance system when choosing where to park a vehicle as taught by Homutescu with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system in Eyster to utilize fuel consumption of the vehicle and associated cost of the fuel consumption when it is recommending nearby parking lots, and therefore improve a driver’s ability to obtain information about available services and parking costs associated with nearby parking lots.
As per claims 12, 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 3. The cited portions of Eyster, Shao, Choi and Homutescu used in the rejection of claims 3 teach the same limitations of claims 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 3 as outlined above.
9. 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
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 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
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights