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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11511736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US11511736
claim 1
claim 1
claim 2
claim 2
claim 3
claim 3
claim 4
claim 4
claim 5
claim 1
claim 6
claim 5
claim 7
claim 6
claim 8
claim 7
claim 9
claim 2
claim 10
claim 3
claim 11
claim 4
claim 12
claim 6
claim 13
claim 1
claim 14
claim 6
claim 15
claim 1
claim 16
claim 2
claim 17
claim 3
claim 18
claim 5
claim 19
claim 7
claim 20
claim 5
Additionally, claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10503168. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US10503168
claim 1
claim 1
claim 2
claim 2
claim 3
claim 3
claim 4
claim 4
claim 5
claim 1
claim 6
claim 5
claim 7
claim 6
claim 8
claim 7
claim 9
claim 2
claim 10
claim 3
claim 11
claim 4
claim 12
claim 6
claim 13
claim 1
claim 14
claim 5
claim 15
claim 1
claim 16
claim 2
claim 17
claim 3
claim 18
claim 1
claim 19
claim 6
claim 20
claim 5
Additionally, claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12111165. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US12111165
claim 1
claim 1
claim 2
claim 2
claim 3
claim 3
claim 4
claim 10
claim 5
claim 4
claim 6
claim 5
claim 7
claim 6
claim 8
claim 7
claim 9
claim 2
claim 10
claim 3
claim 11
claim 10
claim 12
claim 6
claim 13
claim 4
claim 14
claim 5
claim 15
claim 1
claim 16
claim 2
claim 17
claim 3
claim 18
claim 1
claim 19
claim 6
claim 20
claim 5
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under Double Patenting, but would be allowable if the rejections were overcome. The closest prior art of record is US8220710, which discloses parking spaces and waiting positions for mobile drive units. Additionally, US20170200367 discloses a waiting position for vehicles as part of a valet system when vehicles are parked. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards: automatically retrieving a vehicle capable of autonomous operation from a parking space at a parking facility, comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a holding location separate from the parking facility; determining, by the one or more processors, a movement plan for the vehicle, the movement plan including an autonomous route from the parking space to a target location, the autonomous route including a first portion from the parking space to the holding location and a second portion from the holding location to the target location, the holding location being different from the target location; and causing, by the one or more processors, a vehicle control system of the vehicle to operate the vehicle to the holding location according to the movement plan prior to receiving a request to provide access to the vehicle. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide sufficient disclosure, teaching or suggestion to adequately provide a basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892. Specifically, the following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s claims:
US8220710 - System And Method For Positioning A Mobile Drive Unit; and
US20170200367 - VALET PARKING METHOD AND SYSTEM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663