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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 102(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that claim 1 is not directed towards an abstract idea due to the AVP reference system being installed at least partially within the parking lot. The AVP reference system is recited at a high-level of generality and is interpreted as a general-purpose computer. In Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank, the courts established that simply taking a mental process, a mathematical formula, or a fundamental economic practice and adding the phrase “apply it on a computer” or just executing it using standard processors and memory still results in an abstract idea. Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are not directed towards an abstract idea as there is a reference process performed with an AVP vehicle and checking step that are performed. However there are no details on how the reference process or checking step are performed, just that they are executed, and it does not appear that the AVP motor vehicle is being controlled. Therefore, the reference process could be merely a human reading off data associated with the vehicle during an AVP reference process and data associated with the vehicle during an AVP process displayed on a screen and comparing them. The claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts Kang does not disclose a separate reference apparatus installed in the parking lot for verifying or calibrating the infrastructure’s sensing, positioning, or control functions. Kang supports the functions being implemented as different modules as recited in the rejection. Furthermore, the claim does not require the infrastructure AVP system to be physically separate from the AVP reference system. The infrastructure AVP system and AVP reference system may also be broadly interpreted as software modules due to the claim language. Applicant also asserts Kang does not disclose comparing infrastructure-generated data with outputs from a reference AVP system to determine whether the infrastructure itself is operating normally. The Examiner agrees, which is why claim 3, which recites the claimed subject matter, was not rejected under art. The remarks are not sufficient to withdraw the 35 USC 102(a)(1) or 35 USC 103 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14 are directed to processes.
Claim 12 is directed towards software
Claim 13 is directed towards manufactures.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1/12/13 A method for checking an infrastructure automated valet parking (AVP) system of a parking lot, comprising: checking the infrastructure AVP system using an AVP reference system installed at least partially within the parking lot.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses a person comparing data from two systems. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claims 1/12/13 A method for checking an infrastructure automated valet parking (AVP) system of a parking lot, comprising: checking the infrastructure AVP system using an AVP reference system installed at least partially within the parking lot.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “the system installed at least partially within the parking lot”, the examiner submits that these limitations merely define the environment in which the method is executed in.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1, 12, 13 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the system installed at least partially within the parking lot merely defines the environment in which the method takes place.
Dependent claims 2-6 further define the data being compared. Therefore, the claim does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 further defines how the data is stored. Therefore, the claim does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 is a mental process in that a person could perform a mental judgement or mental evaluation of approving the AVP process since the claim does not further define what is involved with approving. Therefore, the claim does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10 and 11 further define from where the data originates from. Examiner notes that there are no positive steps of receiving detecting using the sensors and thus the data could be data that was previously stored. Therefore, the claim does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 merely defines what is excluded or not performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 2021/0162988).
As per claims 1, 12, and 13, Kang discloses an automated valet parking reference system configured to check an infrastructure automated valet parking AVP system of a parking lot, the AVP reference system being installed at least partially within the parking lot (see at least para. 38 for automated valet parking system; see at least para. 70 for error control operation is performed wherein infrastructure 100 checks communication between infrastructure and the vehicle for error; see at least para. 144 for the disclosed functions may be implemented as modules; therefore the infrastructure automated valet parking system is interpreted as infrastructure 100 and the automated valet parking reference system is interpreted to be a module within the infrastructure which performs the error control function).
As per claim 2, Kang further discloses performing, by the AVP reference system, an AVP reference process with an AVP motor vehicle within the parking lot, wherein the checking of the infrastructure AVP system includes checking by the AVP reference system and based on the AVP reference process, an AVP process performed by the infrastructure AVP system with the AVP motor vehicle within the parking lot (see at least para. 70 for communication between infrastructure and vehicle is checked for error by the error control operation; wherein the AVP process is interpreted to be communication between the infrastructure and the vehicle and the AVP reference process is the error checking).
As per claim 5, Kang further discloses wherein the AVP reference system specifies one or more tests to be performed as part of the AVP process, wherein the infrastructure AVP system is checked by the AVP reference system based on a particular test result (see para. 70 for communication between infrastructure and vehicle is checked for error by the error control operation; wherein the test is interpreted to be checking the communication for error).
As per claim 6, Kang further discloses wherein the one or more tests to be performed respectively include an element selected from the following group of tests:
As per claim 9, Kang further discloses wherein, based on the check, the infrastructure AVP system is approved for performing AVP processes within the parking lot (see at least Fig. 4B for vehicle performs emergency stop when communication fault is detected and only resumes when instruction from infrastructure is received; therefore approval of the infrastructure to control autonomous parking of the vehicle is denied until communication is restored).
As per claim 11, Kang further discloses wherein an AVP reference motor vehicle is used for the check (see at least para. 70 for vehicle).
As per claim 14, Kang further discloses wherein the AVP reference system performs the AVP reference process with the AVP motor vehicle without the AVP reference system sending control commands to the AVP motor vehicle for at least highly automated control of a lateral and longitudinal guidance of the AVP motor vehicle (see at least para. 74 for communication check involves transfer of vehicle state, which is not a control command).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2021/0162988) in view of Nordbruch (US 2022/0299992).
As per claim 8, Kang is silent regarding but Nordbruch teaches wherein one or more or all method steps and/or data ascertained for the check are documented in a block chain (see at least para. 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang with Nordbruch because it allows the method steps to be subsequently analyzed even after being executed and also be tamper-proof and forgery-proof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art, neither alone nor in combination, teaches the claimed combination of limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights