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 communication is in response to application No. 18/808,332, filed on 08/19/2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/19/2024 has been acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: step S18 from Fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in par. 11, "After confirming that the user 20 has gotten off the train, the management system 100 starts AVP for the target vehicle stopping at the vehicle stop position 2b" appears to be a translation error and should be "After confirming that the user 20 has gotten off the target vehicle, the management system 100 starts AVP for the target vehicle stopping at the vehicle stop position 2b" or equivalent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Clams 1-5 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The independent claim 1 recites: “start a vehicle identification process for identifying the first vehicle as the target vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in a vehicle identification zone prior to the vehicle stop position”
This limitation is an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are “processing circuitry”, “establish the communication with a first vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in an authority transition zone prior to a vehicle stop position where the user gets off the target vehicle”, and “after the vehicle identification process is completed, complete the transfer of the authority from the user”. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitations the courts have identified that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The element(s) “processing circuitry” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The element(s) “establish the communication with a first vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in an authority transition zone prior to a vehicle stop position where the user gets off the target vehicle”, and “after the vehicle identification process is completed, complete the transfer of the authority from the user” are not an inventive concept because they are merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry, which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. This is evidenced by par. 5 in Applicant’s specification, which lists establishing communication with the target vehicle and transferring operation authority as conventional in the field of AVPs. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), amount to simply adding the equivalent of the words “apply it” with the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), or as stated above. Further, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claims 2-5 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 2-5 are not patent-eligible.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1-5 are not eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon (US 20200209877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a vehicle operation system for performing an operation of a target vehicle through communication by transferring an authority to operate the target vehicle from a user of the target vehicle (Fig. 1-2, autonomous valet parking apparatus 200), the vehicle operation system comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 2) configured to:
establish the communication with a first vehicle while the first vehicle (vehicle 200) is traveling in an authority transition zone (parking lot) prior to a vehicle stop position where the user gets off the target vehicle (par. 87, " In step (3), the infrastructure facility 100 transmits an authentication ID submission request to the vehicle 200. In step (4), the vehicle 200 transmits the authentication ID to the infrastructure facility 100”—the vehicle and system are in communication);
start a vehicle identification process for identifying the first vehicle as the target vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in a vehicle identification zone (parking lot) prior to the vehicle stop position (par. 87, " In step (3), the infrastructure facility 100 transmits an authentication ID submission request to the vehicle 200. In step (4), the vehicle 200 transmits the authentication ID to the infrastructure facility 100. In step (5), the infrastructure facility 100 determines whether to allow entry of the vehicle 200 into the parking lot on the basis of the received authentication ID"—the authority transition zone and the vehicle identification zone encompass the same area, as the communication is established in order to identify the vehicle);
and after the vehicle identification process is completed, complete the transfer of the authority from the user (par. 87, “In step (7), the driver turns off the engine of the vehicle 200, gets off the vehicle 200, locks the door of the vehicle 200, and leaves the drop-off area. In step (8), the authority to drive the vehicle 200 is delegated from the vehicle 200 (or the driver) to the infrastructure facility 100”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Haag (US 20250069497 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yoon teaches the vehicle operation system according to claim 1. Yoon further teaches the vehicle identification zone is included in the authority transition zone (the authority transition zone and the vehicle identification zone encompass the same area, as the communication is established in order to identify the vehicle).
Yoon fails to teach the vehicle identification process includes: after the communication is established, instructing the first vehicle via the communication to perform a predetermined action for identifying the target vehicle; recognizing an action performed by the first vehicle using a sensor; and identify the first vehicle that performs the predetermined action as the target vehicle.
However, Haag teaches the vehicle identification process includes:
after the communication is established, instructing the first vehicle via the communication to perform a predetermined action for identifying the target vehicle (par. 7, “The infrastructure sends a code to the motor vehicle via a wireless communication interface”);
recognizing an action performed by the first vehicle using a sensor (par. 7, “The infrastructure monitors the drop-off zone using cameras and attempts to distinguish the flashing light code in the camera images”);
and identify the first vehicle that performs the predetermined action as the target vehicle (par. 7, “If the code is distinguished correctly, the infrastructure can assign its camera images to a specific AVP motor vehicle. This means that the motor vehicle is identified and localized, which means that, among other things, a pose of the motor vehicle is determined”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Haag in order to identify the vehicle (par. 3-7). Haag also describes this as being a conventional method of identifying the vehicle (par. 6), therefore it would have been an obvious option for Yoon.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Haag as applied above, and further in view of Huang (US 7973641 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoon in view of Haag teaches the vehicle operation system according to claim 2. Both Yoon and Haag fail to teach the processing circuitry is further configured to move an end position of the vehicle identification zone closer to the vehicle stop position as quality of the communication decreases.
However, Huang teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to move an end position of the vehicle identification zone (Fig. 4, vehicle identification zone is marked by D2 which spans the distance between detector 1 230 and primary antenna 210) closer to the vehicle stop position as quality of the communication decreases (column 7 lines 31-35, “In the event the RFID reader 250 is not able to determine an ID from the RFID tag 201 using the primary antenna 210, the driver may continue slowly toward the secondary antenna 240, and stop if necessary, to allow reading of the RFID tag 201 to ensure the RFID tag is successfully read”—when the antenna is unable to read the RFID tag, the end of the zone is moved from the primary antenna 210 to the secondary antenna 240, in other words the zone is extended from D2 to D2+D1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yoon in view of Haag to incorporate the teachings of Huang in order to allow the vehicle entering a parking facility to be identified without stopping (column 2 lines 6-9) and thus increasing convenience for the driver (column 2 lines 10-14). Although this invention relates to RFID tags, it could also reasonably be used for other methods of identification. A camera or any other sensor used for identifying a vehicle pose or action would benefit from a longer vehicle identification zone in the same situations an RFID reader would, namely when there are connection issues and the sensor is unable to identify the vehicle in the span of time given. Moving the end position of the vehicle identification zone would give the camera or sensor a longer time to identify the vehicle.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Heilbron (US 20230236037 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon teaches the vehicle operation system according to claim 1. Yoon fails to teach the processing circuitry is further configured to notify the user to limit a speed of the first vehicle to a first speed or less before the first vehicle reaches the vehicle identification zone.
However, Heilbron teaches the vehicle operation system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to notify the user (par. 132, “system 100 may analyze the collected data and issue warnings and/or alerts to vehicle occupants based on the analysis of the collected data”) to limit a speed of the first vehicle to a first speed or less before the first vehicle reaches the vehicle identification zone (par. 395, “For example, a road segment map may indicate a target speed for one or more lanes or other navigable portions of a road segment (or any other location or surface over which a vehicle may navigate such as a parking lot, field, dirt path, etc.)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Heilbron in order to for autonomous vehicles to successfully navigate (par. 3). Vehicles which notify the user of speed limits is well-known in the art and can be found on many modern vehicles, and parking lots typically have speed limits to minimize safety risks. Therefore, it would have been obvious for Yoon to add the feature of notifying the user of a parking lot speed limit.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Heilbron as applied above, and further in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yoon in view of Heilbron teaches the vehicle operation system according to claim 4. Both Yoon and Heilbron fail to explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to notify the user to limit the speed of the first vehicle to a second speed or less after the first vehicle reaches the vehicle identification zone, the second speed being lower than the first speed. However, if a parking lot would have multiple posted speed limits, Heilbron would be able to notify the user to limit the speed further at specific zones. Additionally, as the vehicle identification zone is before the vehicle stop position, the user would know to slow down regardless in order to stop at the stop position.
Huang teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to notify the user to limit the speed of the first vehicle to a second speed or less after the first vehicle reaches the vehicle identification zone, the second speed being lower than the first speed (column 8 lines 28-37, “If the vehicle passes the second detector 231 and the RFID tag has not successfully been read, a signal may be presented to the driver to indicate to the driver that the primary antenna 210 has failed to read the tag (e.g., an illuminated light, display, sign, and/or audio alarm). The vehicle 205 travels a distance d2 from the time it passes the first detector and the time the driver realizes the first antenna failed to read the tag. The vehicle 205 may safely slow down and/or stop in front of the gate near the secondary antenna 240 at a distance of d1. If the gate 220 is not open due to read failure, driver will have enough time to brake and stop in front of the gate 220.”—a signal is presented to the driver to slow down).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yoon in view of Heilbron to incorporate the teachings of Huang in order to give the driver enough time to brake and stop (column 8 lines 28-37). Although this signal is not given by the vehicle operation system, when combined with Heilbron (which is given by the vehicle operation system) it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Huang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights