DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 the Application
2. Pursuant to the pre-examination amendment filed application filed September 5, 2024, claims 1-22 par pending in the application. The applicant has cancelled claims 23-55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 12, 13, and 17-22 and claims 1, 2, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alneghaimish (US 2018/0283894 A1) in view of Kuhlman et al. (US 2012/0056758 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Alneghaimish discloses:
a system for providing parking guidance for vehicles in a parking facility ([0002]), the system comprising:
monitoring circuitry configured to monitor a plurality of trigger points within the parking facility for trigger events ([0022], [0033], [0034], [0039], [0040]; FIG. 1: 104); and
Alneghaimish does not explicitly disclose control circuitry, but Alneghaimish does disclose a server that is implemented by a computer that comprises a CPU that performs the control processes claimed below ([0022], [0050]; FIG. 1: 102; FIG. 7: 726), which suggests that the computer of Alneghaimish is configured as control circuitry for the benefit of enabling the computer to perform the control processes claimed below;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Alneghaimish in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the computer of the system to perform control processes;
configured to, for each trigger event detected within the parking facility:
determine, using a global optimization algorithm, for each respective vehicle of a plurality of vehicles within the parking facility that have not yet parked in a parking spot, a respective optimal parking spot ([0028], [0033], [0036], [0047]);
assign to each respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles its respective optimal parking spot ([0033], [0036], [0047]); and
provide, to each respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, at one or more checkpoints within the parking facility, guidance to a parking spot assigned to the respective vehicle ([0029], [0037], [0049]; FIG. 2: 220).
Alneghaimish does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of vehicles within the parking facility that have not yet parked in a parking spot includes vehicles to which a parking spot has already been assigned;
wherein, for a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to which a parking spot has already been assigned, the respective optimal parking spot may differ from a parking spot already assigned to the respective vehicle;
Kuhlman, in the same field of systems for providing parking guidance for vehicles in a parking facility, teaches a system and method for managing and locating available parking spot locations for one or more vehicles ([0002]), comprising:
wherein the plurality of vehicles within the parking facility that have not yet parked in a parking spot includes vehicles to which a parking spot has already been assigned ([0042], [0043], [0044], [0051]; FIG. 9: 402, 404, 406);
wherein, for a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to which a parking spot has already been assigned, the respective optimal parking spot may differ from a parking spot already assigned to the respective vehicle ([0061], [0062], [0063]; FIG. 9: 440, 444, 446),
for the benefit of enabling the system to select a new spot when the system learns that the previously open spot has been occupied ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Kuhlman with three system of Alneghaimish because that would have enabled the system to select a new spot when the system learns that the previously open spot has been occupied.
Regarding claim 13, Alneghaimish discloses that the global optimization algorithm minimizes a total estimated travel time for the plurality of vehicles. ([0029], [0043])
Regarding claim 17, Alneghaimish discloses:
a memory ([0026], [0050]; FIG. 7: 102);
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
collect information describing each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles ([0030], [0033], [0039]); and
store the collected information ([0022], [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Alneghaimish discloses that the control circuitry is further configured to track a position of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles within the parking facility. ([0036])
Regarding claim 19, Alneghaimish discloses that the control circuitry configured to track a position of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles within the parking facility is further configured to:
capture one or more images of each respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles using one or more cameras ([0041]); and
determine, based on the one or more images and a respective location of each of the one or more cameras, a current position of each respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles ([0027], [0036]).
Regarding claim 20, Alneghaimish discloses that the system is further configured to: transmit, to each respective vehicle, as the respective vehicle reaches the checkpoint, an indication of a direction in which the first vehicle should proceed. ([0023], [0029], [0030], [0031]; FIG. 1: 110)
Regarding claim 21, Alneghaimish discloses that the indication comprises one or more of a visual indication, and audio indication, or a text indication. ([0030], [0031])
Regarding claim 22, Alneghaimish discloses that the plurality of trigger points comprises one or more of an entrance to the parking facility, an exit from the parking facility, any number of parking spots within the parking facility, or any number of checkpoints within the parking facility. ([0027], [0033], [0034], [0039])
Regarding claim 1, Alneghaimish discloses a method ([0002]); otherwise, claim 1 is rejected as claim 12.
Claim 2 is rejected as claim 13.
Claim 6 is rejected as claim 17.
Claim 7 is rejected as claim 18.
Claim 8 is rejected as claim 19.
Claim 9 is rejected as claim 20.
Claim 10 is rejected as claim 21.
Claim 11 is rejected as claim 22.
5. Claims 14 and 16 and claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alneghaimish and Kuhlman further in view of Colijn et al. (US 2019/0179336 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination does not disclose that the total estimated travel time represents a total amount of time for all vehicles of the plurality of vehicles to reach an assigned parking spot.
Colijn, in the same field of systems for providing parking guidance for vehicles in a parking facility, teaches a system for assigning a fleet of driverless vehicles to a plurality of parking locations for parking vehicles of the fleet ([0009]), wherein the total estimated travel time represents a total amount of time for all vehicles of the plurality of vehicles to reach an assigned parking spot ([0082], [0083]) for the benefit of determining the cost of parking the vehicles ([0082], [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Colijn with the system of the above combination because that would have enabled the system to determine the cost of parking a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 16, Colijn further teaches that the system is further configured to identify at least one available parking spot; calculate, for each available parking spot, a respective cost for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the cost is based on a fit score representing how well a respective parking spot matches with a respective vehicle and a time cost to reach a destination from the respective available parking spot; and construct a cost matrix based on the fit scores. ([0082], [0083])
Claim 3 is rejected as claim 14.
Claim 5 is rejected as claim 16.
6. Claim 15 and claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alneghaimish, Kuhlman, and Colijn further in view of Wang (US 2016/0012726 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination does not disclose that the total estimated travel time represents a total amount of time for occupants of all vehicles of the plurality of vehicles to reach their respective destinations, wherein a travel time for occupants of a respective vehicle includes an amount of time needed to walk from an assigned parking spot to their respective destination.
The above combination of Colijn with Alneghaimish and Kuhlman comprises that that the total estimated travel time represents a total amount of time for occupants of all vehicles of the plurality of vehicles to reach their respective destinations. (See the rejection of claim 14.)
The above combination does not disclose that a travel time for occupants of a respective vehicle includes an amount of time needed to walk from an assigned parking spot to their respective destination.
Wang, addressing the same problem of how to calculate the time for parking a vehicle, teaches a method and system for providing mapping a parking zone, storing and alerting a user for a legal parking ([0003]), wherein a travel time for occupants of a respective vehicle includes an amount of time needed to walk from an assigned parking spot to their respective destination ([0024]) for the benefit of predicting a likelihood of obtaining legal parking at the user's identified current location, time and date ([0018], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Wang with the system of the above combination because that would have enabled the system to predict a likelihood of obtaining legal parking at the user's identified current location, time and date.
Claim 4 is rejected as claim 15.
Conclusion
7. 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689