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 .
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.
2. Claim 1-4, 8-9, and 13-15 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Linget ("Cross-Working Group Work Items; Automated Valet Parking Technology Assessment and Use Case Implementation Description; System Architecture, Cellular Network and PC5 Direct Communication Solutions", https://5gaa.org/content/uploads/2023/09/5gaa-wi-avp.pdf) in view of Conroy et al. (US 20200143686A1).
Regarding claim 1, Linget teaches a method for controlling automated valet driving system (AVDS) access of a subject vehicle (SV) by a global AVDS server (see Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where Automated Valet Parking Operator Application Server (AVP Operator AS) is central server for AVP service which includes access and control of vehicles in a facility through User Application Server (User AS).), the method comprising:
transmitting and receiving information between a global AVDS server and at least one local AVDS server (see Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS communicates with AVP FM (Facility Management) AS which manages local AVP system, i.e. transmitting and receiving of information between global and local servers.); and
controlling autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) (see [pg 12], [pg 21] and Fig. 5 where driving commands and instructions are from AVP RVO (Remote Vehicle Operation) AS, and process of vehicle parking involves automated vehicle operation, i.e. autonomous driving of subject vehicle.);
wherein the global AVDS server manages each local AVDS server, transmits/receives data to/from at least one of a vehicle backend (VB) and a user backend (UB) (see [pg 11-12] and Fig. 2 where AVP Operator AS communicates and manages AVP FM AS, and AVP Operator AS interacts, which is transmitting and receiving data to and from, with Vehicle AS (VB) in which User AS (UB) communicates with Vehicle AS to receive AVP service from AVP Operator AS and send AVP service request as well.),
wherein the at least one local AVDS server is a sub-AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server transmits/receives data to/from at least one of the global AVDS server (see [pg 12] where AVP FM AS manages local AVP Operator System, including parking facility gates, sensors installed, etc., and is in communication with AVP Operator AS, i.e. a sub-AVDS interacting with global AVDS and also interacting with local facility system, which is a local AVDS server.).
Linget does not teach:
a value added system (VA), and
wherein the VA includes at least one of a charging station for the SV and a car wash for the SV.
However, Conroy teaches autonomous vehicle parking to terminals, which are parking facilities, that also provide servicing capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations (see [0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend of Linget by incorporating teaching of Conroy such that autonomous vehicle parking also accounts for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations.
The motivation to have automated valet parking through global and local servers to include terminals that account for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations is that, as indicated by Conroy, this would allow for autonomous vehicles to park at terminals according to vehicle needs and prevent and improve roadway congestion through use of terminals during off-peak hours (see [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the controlling of the autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) includes controlling AVDS reservation (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where automated valet parking control (AVPC) logical interface, which handles AVP services and reservations, allows for communication between AVP Operator AS and Vehicle AS, which is in communication with AVP remote vehicle operation and vehicle app for driving commands and instructions, i.e. control of autonomous vehicle and its reservations.); and
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server, for the AVDS reservation, by the global AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is a global AVDS server, is in communication to AVP FM AS, i.e. local AVDS server, and Vehicle AS, a sub-AVDS server to AVP Operator AS, through AVPC logical interface that handles AVP services and reservations.), includes:
receiving a request for availability from the user backend (UB), wherein the availability includes at least one of a parking period or a service (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11] where User Application Server (User AS) at a user backend communicates with User App and to Vehicle AS to send AVP service requests, i.e. parking service request, from end user for Vehicle AS to receive. Note also in [pg 11] that Vehicle AS is in communication with AVP Operator AS which manages parking availability.);
transmitting the request for availability to the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget [pg 11] and Fig. 2 where AVP Operator AS manages parking facility availability and AVP FM AS manages local AVP Operator System that communicates with the AVP Operator AS and executes AVP service commands, i.e. availability request is sent to AVP Operator AS, which is a global server, to AVP FM AS, which is a local server.);
receiving a request for compatibility data from the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget [pg 11] where AVP Operator AS also check for compatibility between vehicle and parking facility, and AVP Operator AS is in communication with AVP FM AS that manages local AVP Operator System to execute AVP service commands, such as request to check compatibility between vehicle and parking facility, i.e. compatibility data.);
transmitting the request for compatibility data to the vehicle backend (VB) (see Linget [pg 11] and Fig. 2 where Vehicle Application Server, Vehicle Backend (VB), is in communication with AVP Operator AS that checks for compatibility between vehicle and parking facility.);
receiving the compatibility data from the VB, wherein the compatibility data includes at least one of identification (ID) information, size information, or fuel type information for the subject vehicle (SV) (see Conroy [0013], [0015], [0018] and [0019] where server is programmed to identify which vehicle is directed to what terminals, i.e. matching vehicle to parking facilities, and vehicle provides fuel level, vehicle health, and vehicle type to indicate fuel type, such as electric, hybrid, or fuel.); and
transmitting the compatibility data to the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget [pg 12] and Fig. 2 where AVP Operator AS sends AVP service control information to AVP FM AS that executes AVP service commands; see further Conroy [0035]-[0036] where scheduling server uses compatibility information to select a terminal and informs the terminal of a request for servicing of a vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend of Linget by incorporating teaching of Conroy such that autonomous vehicle parking also accounts for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations, where a server is programmed to match vehicles to parking facilities based on vehicle needs, such as fuel and fuel types determined from vehicle information, and schedule of availability of parking facilities.
The motivation to have automated valet parking through global and local servers to include terminals that account for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations is that, as indicated by Conroy, this would allow for autonomous vehicles to park at terminals according to vehicle needs and prevent and improve roadway congestion through use of terminals during off-peak hours (see [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the controlling of the autonomous driving of the SV includes controlling AVDS reservation (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where automated valet parking control (AVPC) logical interface, which handles AVP services and reservations, allows for communication between AVP Operator AS and Vehicle AS, which is in communication with AVP remote vehicle operation (AVP RVO AS) and vehicle app for driving commands and instructions, i.e. control of autonomous vehicle and its reservations.); and
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server, for the AVDS reservation, by the global AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is a global AVDS server, is in communication to AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, and Vehicle AS, sub-server to AVP Operator AS, through AVPC logical interface that handles AVP services and reservations.), includes:
receiving new reservation information from the at least one local AVDS server, wherein the new reservation information includes at least one of reservation identification (ID) information, available timeslot information, a service, and a service cost (see Conroy [0044] where terminals, i.e. local server, provides to a scheduling server, i.e. central or global server, times in which the terminal has available capacity as well as maximum amount of vehicles that can be serviced within that time.);
transmitting the new reservation information to the user backend (UB) (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11] where User Application Server (User AS) at a user backend communicates with User App and to Vehicle AS to send AVP service requests.);
receiving reservation confirmation information from the user backend (UB), wherein the reservation confirmation information includes at least one of the reservation identification (ID) information, determined timeslot information, and determined service (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11] where User Application Server (User AS) at a user backend communicates with User App and to Vehicle AS to send AVP service requests, i.e. parking service request, from end user for Vehicle AS to receive. Note also in Linget [pg 11] that Vehicle AS is in communication with AVP Operator AS which manages parking availability; see further Conroy [0044] where terminals, i.e. local server, provides to a scheduling server, i.e. central or global server, times in which the terminal has available capacity as well as maximum amount of vehicles that can be serviced within that time.); and
transmitting the reservation confirmation information to the at least one local AVDS (see Linget [pg 12] and Fig. 2 where AVP Operator AS sends AVP service control information to AVP FM AS that executes AVP service commands. Note also in Conroy [0035]-[0036] where scheduling server uses compatibility information to select a terminal and informs the terminal of a request for servicing of a vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend of Linget by incorporating teaching of Conroy such that terminals, which are local servers of parking facilities, provide to a global server of scheduling server times in which the terminals have available capacity as well as maximum number of vehicles that can be serviced within that time, as well as global server informs a local server of a request for servicing of a vehicle.
The motivation to have automated valet parking through global and local servers to include terminals that account for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations is that, as indicated by Conroy, this would allow for autonomous vehicles to park at terminals according to vehicle needs and prevent and improve roadway congestion through use of terminals during off-peak hours (see [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the controlling of the autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) includes AVDS check-in (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where automated valet parking control (AVPC) logical interface, which handles AVP services and reservations, allows for communication between AVP Operator AS and Vehicle AS, which is in communication with AVP remote vehicle operation and vehicle app for driving commands and instructions, i.e. control of autonomous vehicle; see further Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 where in check-in sequence a vehicle arrives at a parking facility, global AVP System confirms reservation, creates and communication session ID and vehicle is switched to AVP network for autonomous driving.); and
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server, for the AVDS check-in, by the global AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is a global AVDS server, is in communication to AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, and Vehicle AS, a sub-server in communication with AVP Operator AS, through AVPC logical interface that handles AVP services. Note also in Fig. 8 that AVP Operator AS also validates reservation during check-in sequence, which necessarily is communicated to local AVP Operator System in which AVP FM AS manages, which is in communication with AVP Operator AS.), includes:
receiving identification (ID) information about the SV from a remote vehicle operation (RO) that recognizes that the SV has arrived at a parking facility (see Linget Fig. 8 and [pg 12] where AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS, a local AVDS server of AVP Operator AS, recognizes vehicle arrival at a reserved parking facility through access of sensors of local servers AVP FM AS and sends this recognition information, which is labeled SV_ID for subject vehicle ID, to AVP Operator AS, i.e. global server, and User and Vehicle Backend.);
transmitting identification (ID) information about the SV to the at least one local AVDS server and the user backend (UB) (see Linget Fig. 8 where AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS recognizes vehicle arrival at a reserved parking facility and sends this information, which is labeled SV_ID for subject vehicle ID, to AVP Operator AS, i.e. global server, which is in communication with AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, and User Backend (UB) as well as Vehicle AS and Vehicle App.);
generating session identification (ID) information (see Linget Fig. 8 where AVP Operator AS is in communication with AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS, and once reservation and vehicle data is validated upon arrival and check-in, AVP Operator AS and AVP RVO AS communicates and creates a session ID of a vehicle, i.e. ID to recognize that the vehicle has arrived, and sends the session ID to User Backend (UB).); and
transmitting the session identification (ID) information to the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 8 where AVP Operator AS is in communication with AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS, and once reservation and vehicle data is validated upon arrival and check-in, AVP Operator AS and AVP RVO AS communicates and creates a session ID of a vehicle, i.e. ID to recognize that the vehicle has arrived, and as seen on Fig. 2, AVP Operator AS necessarily communicates the session ID to AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, as well as Vehicle AS, a local server of AVP Operator AS, and Vehicle App.).
Regarding claim 8, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
controlling an AVDS mission of the subject vehicle (SV) (see Linget [pg 12], [pg 13] and Fig. 5 where AVP system creates a mission and vehicle motion control is done by AVP RVO AS.),
wherein the AVDS mission includes at least one of electric vehicle (EV) charging, car wash or a parking for the SV (see Linget Fig. 5 where it indicates communication sequence for parking process, and steps C-F shows mission creation and vehicle motion control process to achieve mission.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 8,
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS communicates with AVP FM AS which manages local AVP system, i.e. transmitting and receiving of information between global and local servers.) includes:
based on a mission trigger of the at least one local AVDS server, generating, by the global AVDS server, identification (ID) information of the mission for the EV charging (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 12] where AVP FM AS manages local AVP Operator System using facility gates and sensors to detect arrival of a vehicle in a facility, i.e. mission trigger, which then, in Figs 5 and 10, it is communicated to AVP Operator AS to create mission ID to be send as request to Vehicle AS and User AS. Note also in [pg 59] that cellular coverage is required to ensure vehicle connectivity for managing tasks that includes charging station, i.e. mission for EV charging; see further in Conroy [0032] where a request for charging service is indicated to scheduling server, i.e. a global server, then the scheduling server will identify a terminal that provides charging.),
wherein the identification (ID) information of the mission is generated through data communication between the at least one local AVDS server and the value added system (VA) (see Linget [pg 12] where AVP FM AS manages local AVP Operator System using facility gates and sensors to detect arrival of a vehicle in a facility, i.e. mission trigger, which then, in Figs 5 and 10, it is communicated to AVP Operator AS to create mission ID to be send as request to Vehicle AS and User AS. Note also in [pg 59] that cellular coverage is required to ensure vehicle connectivity for managing tasks that includes charging station, i.e. value added system of smartphone to a charging station in a parking area.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend of Linget by incorporating teaching of Conroy such that the mission trigger and generation of Linget and scheduling server identifying charging station of Conroy combine to teach a local server triggered mission ID to a global server to identify and control a vehicle towards an EV charging station.
The motivation to have automated valet parking through global and local servers to include terminals that account for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations is that, as indicated by Conroy, this would allow for autonomous vehicles to park at terminals according to vehicle needs and prevent and improve roadway congestion through use of terminals during off-peak hours (see [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 8,
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS communicates with AVP FM AS which manages local AVP system, i.e. transmitting and receiving of information between global and local servers.) includes:
based on a mission trigger of the at least one local AVDS server, generating, by the global AVDS server, identification (ID) information of a mission for the parking (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 12] where AVP FM AS manages local AVP Operator System using facility gates and sensors to detect arrival of a vehicle in a facility, i.e. mission trigger, which then, in Figs 5 and 10, it is communicated to AVP Operator AS to create mission ID to be send as request to Vehicle AS and User AS. Note also in Fig. 5 where it indicates communication sequence for parking process, and steps C-F shows mission creation and vehicle motion control process to achieve mission.),
wherein the identification (ID) information of the mission for the parking is generated through information decided when reservation of the SV is performed (see Linget Fig. 5 where step A indicates that AVP System confirms reservation once vehicle arrives at a reserved parking facility, then, after handover sequence where user gives authority to AVP System, AVP System creates a mission ID which would be based on user preference decided during reservation, i.e. mission information through when reservation of SV is performed by user.).
Regarding claim 14, Linget teaches an apparatus for controlling automated valet driving system (AVDS) access of a subject vehicle (SV) of a global automated valet driving system (AVDS) server (see Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator Application Server (AVP Operator AS) is central server for AVP service which includes access and control of vehicles in a facility through User Application Server (User AS). Note also in [pg 55] there is implementation of smart RSU that carries both communication and computing hardware, PC5 and CPU.), the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive data related to the AVDS access (see [pg 55] where RSU is configured to transmit and receive data to a metadata and multiple RSUs are connected through a centralized node to perform tasks that includes path planning, scheduling and remote vehicle operation, i.e. AVDS access.);
a memory connected to the transceiver (see [pg 56] where RSUs are capable of maintaining database of ITS stations, i.e. memory within RSU which also communicates between each other and global network.); and
a processor connected to the memory (see [pg 55]-[pg 56] where RSU, which can store databases has computing hardware that includes CPU, a central processing unit, that also has AVP RVO AS to perform automated valet parking tasks.), wherein instructions stored in the memory enable the processor to:
control the transceiver to transmit and receive information between a global AVDS server and at least one local AVDS server (see Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is in communication with AVP RVO AS of a RSU, communicates with AVP FM AS which manages local AVP system, i.e. transmitting and receiving of information between global and local servers.); and
control autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) (see [pg 12], [pg 21] and Fig. 5 where driving commands and instructions are from AVP RVO AS, and process of vehicle parking involves automated vehicle operation, i.e. autonomous driving of subject vehicle.),
wherein the global AVDS server manages each local AVDS server, transmits/receives data to/from at least one of a vehicle backend (VB) and a user backend (UB) (see [pg 11-12] and Fig. 2 where AVP Operator AS communicates and manages AVP FM AS, and AVP Operator AS interacts, which is transmitting and receiving data to and from, with Vehicle AS (VB) in which User AS (UB) communicates with Vehicle AS to receive AVP service from AVP Operator AS and send AVP service request as well.),
wherein the at least one local AVDS server is a sub-AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server transmits/receives data to/from at least one of the global AVDS server (see [pg 12] where AVP FM AS manages local AVP Operator System, including parking facility gates, sensors installed, etc., and is in communication with AVP Operator AS, i.e. a sub-AVDS interacting with global AVDS and also interacting with local facility system, which is a local AVDS server.)
Linget does not teach:
a value added system (VA), and
wherein the VA includes at least one of a charging station for the SV and a car wash for the SV.
However, Conroy teaches autonomous vehicle parking to terminals, which are parking facilities, that also provide servicing capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations (see [0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend of Linget by incorporating teaching of Conroy such that autonomous vehicle parking also accounts for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations.
The motivation to have automated valet parking through global and local servers to include terminals that account for service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations is that, as indicated by Conroy, this would allow for autonomous vehicles to park at terminals according to vehicle needs and prevent and improve roadway congestion through use of terminals during off-peak hours (see [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the apparatus according to claim 14,
wherein the processor is further configured to control an AVDS mission of the subject vehicle (SV) (see Linget [pg 12], [pg 13] and Fig. 5 where AVP system creates a mission and vehicle motion control is done by AVP RVO AS. Note also in [pg 55]-[pg 56] where RSU, which can store databases has computing hardware that includes CPU, a central processing unit, has AVP RVO AS to perform automated valet parking tasks.), and
wherein the mission includes at least one of electric vehicle (EV) charging, car wash or a parking for the SV (see Linget Fig. 5 where it indicates communication sequence for parking process, and steps C-F shows mission creation and vehicle motion control process to achieve mission.).
3. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Linget (5GAA) in view of Conroy in further view of Geng et al. (“New ‘Smart’ Parking System Based on Resource Allocation and Reservations”, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6492250).
Regarding claim 5, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the controlling of the autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) includes AVDS check-in (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where automated valet parking control (AVPC) logical interface, which handles AVP services and reservations, allows for communication between AVP Operator AS and Vehicle AS, which is in communication with AVP remote vehicle operation and vehicle app for driving commands and instructions, i.e. control of autonomous vehicle; see further Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 where in check-in sequence a vehicle arrives at a parking facility, global AVP System confirms reservation, and vehicle is switched to AVP network for autonomous driving.); and
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server, for the AVDS check-in, by the global AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is a global AVDS server, is in communication to AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, and Vehicle AS through AVPC logical interface that handles AVP services. Note also in Fig. 8 that AVP Operator AS also validates reservation during check-in sequence, which necessarily is communicated to local AVP Operator System in which AVP FM AS, which is in communication with AVP Operator AS, manages.), includes:
receiving identification (ID) information about the SV from a remote vehicle operation (RO) that recognizes that the SV has arrived at a parking facility (see Linget Fig. 8 and [pg 12] where AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS recognizes vehicle arrival at a reserved parking facility through access of sensors of local servers AVP FM AS and sends this recognition information, which is labeled SV_ID for subject vehicle ID, to AVP Operator AS, i.e. global server, and User and Vehicle Backend.);
transmitting identification (ID) information about the SV to the at least one local AVDS server and the UB (see Linget Fig. 8 where AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS, local server to AVP Operator AS, recognizes vehicle arrival at a reserved parking facility and sends this information, which is labeled SV_ID for subject vehicle ID, to AVP Operator AS, i.e. global server, which is in communication with AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, and User Backend (UB) as well as Vehicle AS, i.e. other local server.); and
transmitting the session identification (ID) information to the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 8 where AVP Operator AS is in communication with AVP Remote Vehicle Operation (RVO) AS, and once reservation and vehicle data is validated upon arrival and check-in, AVP Operator AS and AVP RVO AS communicates and creates a session ID of a vehicle, i.e. ID to recognize that the vehicle has arrived, and as seen on Fig. 2, AVP Operator AS necessarily communicates the session ID to AVP FM AS, local AVDS server.).
Modified Linget in view of Conroy does not teach:
receiving session identification (ID) information from the at least one local AVDS server.
However, Geng teaches a smart parking system that assigns a parking place for a vehicle and if a vehicle operator is satisfied with it, then a reservation is created and Streetline gateway receives data from each sensor in a network, in which each parking space have a parking detection sensor, and forwards it to an upper level database, which serves as a Parking Resource Management Center (PRMC) to publish and update on internet with a state indicating vacant or occupied of each parking space, i.e. session ID of state of each parking space is received by global server of PRMC from local server of Streetline gateway (see [pg 1137] and [pg 1130]). Note also in [pg 1137] that a central computer sends commands to control state of light at each parking space device, i.e. global server sends information to local server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend that includes generating session ID and providing service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations of Linget in view of Conroy by incorporating teaching of Geng such that local servers, such as Streetline gateway and AVP FM AS, detects state of local parking spaces and other vehicle information to create session ID and forwards it to a global server, such as PRMC and AVP Operator AS, to update to internet, in which parking information can be obtained by users, i.e. other local servers.
The motivation to have local server like Streetline gateway to detect state of local parking space and other vehicle information to be forwarded to a global server like PRMC is that, as indicated by Geng, this would allow for users to see real-time parking information through smartphone and/or information website, enhance fairness through proper decision and pricing control for different classes of users, and allow for optimal parking space reservation based on proximity to destination and cost (see [pg 1129] and [pg 1138]).
4. Claim 6-7 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Linget in view of Conroy in further view of Timpner et al. (“A back-end system for an autonomous parking and charging system for electric vehicles”, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6183267&tag=1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the controlling of the autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) includes AVDS handover (see Linget [pg 11] and Fig. 9 where AVP Operator AS, which also has a task to dispatch a vehicle into driverless operation, via Vehicle AS has a task of handing over authority, which is rights and ability to perform tasks on a vehicle, with a user.); and
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server, for the AVDS handover, by the global AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is a global AVDS server, is in communication to AVP RVO AS and AVP FM AS, local AVDS servers to AVP Operator AS, and Vehicle AS through AVPC logical interface that handles AVP services; see further Linget Fig. 9 and [pg 26] where “Handover Request” is initiated from User App, which is then sent to User AS (user backend) and then to AVP Operator AS, i.e. AVDS handover to global AVDS server that is in communication to local server, AVP FM AS.), includes:
requesting a handover of the SV to a remote vehicle operation (RO) (see Linget Fig. 9 where AVP Operator AS also sends “Handover Request” to AVP RVO AS, which is a remote vehicle operation application service.);
recording a handover request (see Linget Fig. 9 where there is a “record handover by user” step to a AVP Operator AS.);
determining that the AVDS has authority (see Linget Fig. 9 where AVP Operator AS determines system authority to a vehicle.); and
notifying the at least one local AVDS server that authority has been handed over to the AVDS (see Linget Fig. 9 and [pg 11] where AVP Operator AS, via Vehicle AS, handing over authority (rights and ability to perform tasks on a vehicle) with user and communicates with AVP FM AS and AVP RVO AS within an AVPOS. Note also in Fig. 9 that AVP Operator AS indicates to User AS and Vehicle AS, which is a local AVDS server to AVP Operator AS, that authority has been handed over.).
Modified Linget in view of Conroy does not teach:
verifying handover availability.
However, Timpner teaches once a driver has parked in drop-off area, vehicle scans for networks where the vehicle communicates with a charge server, but the server will not perform any commands until it verifies that the driver has got out of the vehicle and locked it, i.e. verifying handover availability to which driver is not in the vehicle and not in control (see [pg 6/8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend that includes generating session ID and providing service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations of Linget in view of Conroy by incorporating teaching of Timpner such that parking charge server do not perform any commands until it verifies that a driver is out of a vehicle and locked it.
The motivation to have a verification handover availability of having a driver out of a vehicle and locked it before a server performs any command is that, as indicated by Timpner, this would allow improvements in parking and comfort of autonomous electric vehicles to increase acceptance of electric vehicles, and it would also prevent contradictory or inconsistent commands between a driver and the server for safety and security (see [pg 1/8] and [pg 6/8]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the controlling of the autonomous driving of the subject vehicle (SV) includes AVDS handover (see Linget [pg 11] and Fig. 9 where AVP Operator AS, which also has a task to dispatch a vehicle into driverless operation, via Vehicle AS has a task of handing over authority, which is rights and ability to perform tasks on a vehicle, with a user.); and
wherein the transmitting and receiving information between the global AVDS server and the at least one local AVDS server, for the AVDS handover, by the global AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11-12] where AVP Operator AS, which is a global AVDS server, is in communication to AVP FM AS, a local AVDS server, and Vehicle AS through AVPC logical interface that handles AVP services; see further Linget Fig. 9 and [pg 26] where “Handover Request” is initiated from User App, which is then sent to User AS (user backend) and then to AVP Operator AS, i.e. AVDS handover to global AVDS server that is in communication to local server, AVP FM AS.), includes:
requesting a handover of the SV to at least one of a remote vehicle operation (RO) or the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 9 where AVP Operator AS also sends “Handover Request” to AVP RVO AS, which is a remote vehicle operation application service.),
wherein the handover request is recorded by the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 9 and [pg 12] where there is a “record handover by user” step to a AVP Operator AS, which is in communication with AVP FM AS that manages local AVP Operator System to execute AVP service commands, as well as User AS and Vehicle AS, i.e. vehicle backend and user backend, which sends to local servers of User App and Vehicle App. Note also in Linget Fig. 9 that “Handover Request” is sent to AVP RVO AS, a local AVDS server of AVP Operator AS, to be recorded in system memory.);
receiving a result indicating that the AVDS has authority from the at least one local AVDS server (see Linget Fig. 2 and [pg 11] where AVP Operator AS, a global server, communicates with AVP FM AS as well as Vehicle AS and AVP RVO AS; see further Linget Fig. 9 where AVP RVO AS, a local and sub server to AVP Operator AS, sends to AVP Operator AS a “System Authority” indicating result of AVP Operator AS has authority to control a vehicle.); and
notifying at least one of the VB, the RO, or the UB that authority has been handed over (see Linget Fig. 9 and [pg 11] where AVP Operator AS indicates to User AS and Vehicle AS, i.e. vehicle backend and user backend, that authority has been handed over.).
Modified Linget in view of Conroy does not teach:
verifying handover availability.
However, Timpner teaches once a driver has parked in drop-off area, vehicle scans for networks where the vehicle communicates with a charge server, but the server will not perform any commands until it verifies that the driver has got out of the vehicle and locked it, i.e. verifying handover availability to which driver is not in the vehicle and not in control (see [pg 6/8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend that includes generating session ID and providing service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations of Linget in view of Conroy by incorporating teaching of Timpner such that parking charge server do not perform any commands until it verifies that a driver is out of a vehicle and locked it.
The motivation to have a verification handover availability of having a driver out of a vehicle and locked it before a server performs any command is that, as indicated by Timpner, this would allow improvements in parking and comfort of autonomous electric vehicles to increase acceptance of electric vehicles, and it would also prevent contradictory or inconsistent commands between a driver and the server for safety and security (see [pg 1/8] and [pg 6/8]).
5. Claim 10-11 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Linget in view of Conroy in further view of Momoshima et al. (US 20220388421A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Linget in view of Conroy teaches the method according to claim 9,
wherein the global AVDS server is configured to transmit, to the vehicle backend (VB), request information required to decide a mission including the identification (ID) information of the mission (see Fig. 10 where in step C. 1 a “Mission Request” is sent from AVP Operator AS to Vehicle AS (VB) that determines if it is okay for vehicle and OEM, i.e. information required to decide on a mission and if it is okay to create a mission ID regarding said mission.),
and
wherein the global AVDS server is configured to transmit, to the user backend (UB), mission decision information including the identification (ID) information of the mission (see Linget Fig. 10 where User Backend (UB) backend checks mission acceptance to allow user to determine if purpose suits interests of user, which, if it does suit the user, would allow AVP Operator AS to send mission information back to UB and record mission ID in step C.7, i.e. transmit mission decision information including mission ID.).
Modified Linget in view of Conroy also teaches Vehicle AS, which is also VB, that is able to determine a mission task based on mission ID from “Mission Request” (see Linget Fig. 10 step C.2). Note also Linget [pg 59] where cellular coverage ensures user and vehicle connectivity to AVP Operator AS to manage tasks such as charging station.
Modified Linget in view of Conroy does not teach:
wherein at least one of the at least one local AVDS server and the value added system (VA) is configured to determine at least one of a charging station, charging spot, and charging time slot for the electric vehicle (EV) charging based on at least one of a service type and a reservation time, and
wherein the vehicle backend (VB) is configured to determine the mission for the EV charging based on the identification (ID) information of the mission.
However, Momoshima does teach management device and storage device from an automated valet parking system, i.e. a local AVDS server, and charging parking frames, i.e. value added system of charging station or spot, where management device with respect to EV scheduled to be used on the next day, assigns a charging parking frame closer to a departure/arrival place, i.e. determine charging spot and charging station based on shorter ending reservation time (see [0042]-[0044]). In addition, there are two types of charging frames, which are normal charging frames and quick charging frame, that EVs are assigned to based on how quickly EVs are to be used, which is how short reservation time is, i.e. determining charging station based on service type need (see [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend that includes generating session ID and providing service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations of Linget in view of Conroy by incorporating teaching of Momoshima such that management device of an automated valet parking system assigns a charging parking frame closer to a departure/arrival place based on EV scheduled to be used next day or earlier time than others. Note also that this would combine with Linget to teach Vehicle AS, vehicle backend, that is able to determine a mission task of assigning charging parking frame and spot based on mission ID from “Mission Request” that shows reservation time frame of when EV will be used.
The motivation to have a local management device and storage of an automated valet parking system that assigns a charging parking frame closer to a departure/arrival place based on EV scheduled to be used next day or earlier time than others is that, as indicated by Momoshima, this would allow for preventing having obstacles of unused EV that are not being used and still parked, and also prevent a decrease in turnover of a charging parking frame close to a departure/arrival place (see [0015] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Linget in view of Conroy and Momoshima teaches the method according to claim 10,
wherein the controlling of the AVDS mission of the subject vehicle (SV) (see Linget Fig. 5 where it indicates communication sequence for parking process, and steps C-F shows mission creation and vehicle motion control process to achieve mission.) includes:
Linget also teaches where AVP RVO AS, which is a remote vehicle operation, receives information from AVP FM AS of facility and infrastructure sensor data that includes parking occupation data, i.e. parking location of a subject vehicle (pg 11). Further, Linget describes a wake-up sequence of a vehicle and a new mission to re-park is created through a request and mission determination information is delivered to AVP RVO AS, i.e. request information for changing parking location is sent to RO. (Fig 6, 10, 11).
Momoshima teaches a storage device of an automated valet parking system, which includes a remote vehicle operation since it externally automatically parks and drives vehicles as seen on, have map data in a parking place including position of each vehicles that are in location of assigned parking frames, i.e. information related to parking location of subject vehicle at a charging spot ([0031]-[0033]). Further, remaining charge of an EV is 15% and is moved by parking management device, i.e. RO, in between EVs with charge of 10% and 20% while changing parking location of EVs of 20% and 30% to make room for EV with 15% (Fig 4, [0046]-[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend that includes generating session ID and providing service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations of Linget in view of Conroy by incorporating teaching of Momoshima such that a need of a parking location change of a subject vehicle parked at a charging spot to manage and organize vehicles in order of charges and a wake-up sequence is initiated to create a mission to change parking location, and this mission, which is a command, i.e. request, information is sent to a parking management device or AVP RVO AS, i.e. RO.
The motivation to have a local management device and storage of an automated valet parking system that assigns a charging parking frame closer to a departure/arrival place based on EV scheduled to be used next day and/or based on EV charged percentage is that, as indicated by Momoshima, this would allow for preventing having obstacles of unused EV that are not being used and still parked, and also prevent a decrease in turnover of a charging parking frame close to a departure/arrival place (see [0015] and [0045]).
6. Claim 12 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Linget in view of Conroy in further view of Momoshima in further view of Crossman et al. (WO 2022056590A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Linget in view of Conroy and Momoshima teaches the method according to claim 11,
Modified Linget in view of Conroy and Momoshima also teaches when a mission is completed, AVP Operator AS, which is a global server, notifies Vehicle AS (VB), AVP RVO AS, which is a RO, and User AS (UB) (see Linget Fig. 14). Note Linget also teaches in Fig. 6, 10, and 11 that there is a wake-up sequence of a vehicle and a new mission to re-park is created through a request, which is necessitated by a task management that includes tasks of charging station and re-parking in [pg 59], and mission determination information is delivered to AVP RVO AS, i.e. request information for changing parking location is sent to RO, which AVP RVO AS handles vehicle motion control.
Modified Linget in view of Conroy and Momoshima does not teach:
wherein the global AVDS server is configured to receive, from the RO, a response as to whether to charge the subject vehicle (SV) at the changed charging spot, and
wherein, when the EV charging is completed, the global AVDS server is configured to notify the VB, the RO, and the UB of mission completion information.
However, Crossman does teach central server, global server, that is in communication with a charging station to receive a response from a smartphone of an operator to confirm or cancel charging of a vehicle at a charging station (see [0066] and [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify of automated valet parking through control of autonomous vehicles where a global AVP Operator AS manages AVP FM AS and local AVP Operator System using vehicle and user backend that includes generating session ID and providing service capabilities such as car washes, battery chargers, or refueling stations and assigning a vehicle to a charging parking frame closer to a departure/arrival place based on EV scheduled to be used next day and/or based on EV charged percentage of Linget in view of Conroy and Momoshima by incorporating teaching of Crossman such that a global server, that is in communication with charging stations, receives a determination to charge a vehicle at a changed charging spot from a remote operator such as a smartphone or AVP RVO AS that is in communication with AVP Operator AS, which is also in communication with user backend. Also, as indicated above for Fig. 14 of Linget, once a mission/task, in this case a charging mission, created is completed, AVP Operator AS, which is a global server, notifies Vehicle AS (VB), AVP RVO AS, which is a RO, and User AS (UB).
The motivation to confirm or cancel charging of a vehicle after relocation of EV from one location to a charging parking location is that, as indicated by Crossman, this would allow consumers with useful or commercial choice, manage energy for electric vehicles, and make authentication more convenient (see [0002]-[0014] and [0044]-[0046]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Khurewattanakul et al. (US 20200406887A1), automatic valet parking system that includes a terminal device, OEM server, a parking place server, and autonomous driving controller, which all reads into remote operator, global server, and local server.
b. Grimm et al. (US 20200346553A1), electric charging station operation that includes a parking area with a charging area and a charging station server where it receives identification information and charging profile and confirm whether to charge or not.
c. Okubo et al. (US 20220258726A1), information processing device that acquire movement information of a vehicle when user is not on board to move to a parking destination, store movement information, and controller that generates route information and transmit information to user, which is remote operator and server that manages parking and informing user.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burges can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661