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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 09/19/2024. The applicant does not make a claim for Foreign priority. The applicant does submit several Information Disclosure Statements dated 09/19/2024, 04/17/2025, 10/21/2025, and 12/10/2025. The applicant does make a claim for Domestic priority to applications dating back to a provisional application with a filing date of 12/12/2016. Claims 1 – 20 are canceled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,226,625. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying an occupants desired intent to park a vehicle in a particular and available parking space. The claims of the application are more broadly claimed than the application. Therefore, it would be an obvious variant of the patent, which is more specific in defining the features and the operations.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,877. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying an occupants desired intent to park a vehicle in a particular and available parking space. The claims of the application are more broadly claimed than the application. Therefore, it would be an obvious variant of the patent, which is more specific in defining the features and the operations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21– 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 21, 22, 25 - 27, 29 – 32, and 35 – 37 contain the feature of “intent” without defining how that is defined based upon gesture, touch-based, or a gaze. Those three aspects are distinctively different and are not defined in the drawings in Figures 8 and 9.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes US 7,123,166 in view of Cunningham US 2018/0056858.
As per claim 21, A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed using one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine, an intent of an individual permitted to provide guidance with respect to movements of a vehicle using sensors located in the vehicle; (Haynes Col 13 lines 9 – 18, 33 – 38) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
identify, based at least in part on (a) the determined intent of the individual and (b) a data set pertaining to an external environment of the vehicle, one or more vehicular movements to be implemented to proceed along a path towards a particular vehicle stopping point of a plurality of vehicle stopping points in a vicinity of a destination for the vehicle; (Haynes Col 14 lines 16 – 18) and
cause a first directive to be generated to cause one or more motion control subsystems of the vehicle to initiate at least a first vehicular movement of the one or more vehicular movements toward the particular vehicle stopping point. (Haynes Col 14 lines 16 – 18) and (Cunningham paragraph 0102 teaches, “In one embodiment, the PAL system can be immediately activated for a confirmed parking space or can be prohibited from activating for a parking space that is determined to be not wide enough. In one embodiment, the threshold width that the PAL system uses to judge a parking space can be adjustable by the driver.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 22, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 21, wherein the sensors are sensors attached to the vehicle and have one or more fields of view of one or more gestures performed by the individual to indicate the intent of the individual. (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
As per claim 23, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 22, wherein the sensors are sensors of a mobile device located in the vehicle. (Haynes Col 4 lines 16 – 19, Col 9 lines 62 – 67, and Col 10 Lines 27 - 31)
As per claim 24, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 23, wherein the sensors of the mobile device include an inertial sensor, and wherein the program instructions, when executed using the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: detect, using the inertial sensor of the mobile device, gestures performed by the individual. (Haynes Col 6 lines 60 – 62)
As per claim 25, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 24, wherein the inertial sensor of the mobile device indicates a direction of displacement of the mobile device associated with performance of the one or more gestures, and wherein the intent of the individual is determined based, at least in part, on the indicated direction of displacement of the mobile device. (Haynes Col 4 lines 16 – 19, Col 9 lines 62 – 67, and Col 10 Lines 27 - 31)
As per claim 26, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 23 wherein the sensors of the mobile device include a camera, and wherein the program instructions, when executed using the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: determine the intent of the individual, using the camera of the mobile device, based on a view of objects outside the vehicle visible from the camera of the mobile device. (Haynes Col 2 lines 28 – 35)
As per claim 27, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 23, wherein the sensors of the mobile device include a microphone, and wherein the program instructions, when executed using the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive an audio signal from the microphone of the mobile device, wherein the individual issues an audio command along with the one or more gestures, and wherein the intent of the individual is determined based, at least in part, on the audio command indicated in the audio signal. (Cunningham paragraph 0071 teaches, “voice command inputs,”) and (Haynes Col 9 lines 62 – 67)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 28, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 21, wherein the program instructions, when executed using the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
determine, based on one or more gestures, two or more candidate stopping points from amongst the plurality of vehicle stopping points in the vicinity of the destination for the vehicle; (Haynes Col 4 lines 33 – 38) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
issue a voiced query to the individual, the voiced query providing the determined two or more candidate stopping points as selectable options; (Cunningham paragraph 0071 teaches, “voice command inputs,”) and (Haynes Col 9 lines 62 – 67) and
receive one or more audio signals indicating a response of the individual to the voiced query. (Cunningham paragraph 0071 teaches, “voice command inputs,”) and (Haynes Col 9 lines 62 – 67)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 29, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 21, wherein the sensors located in the vehicle indicate a gaze direction of the individual that is used to indicate the intent of the individual. (Haynes Col 10 lines 66, 67 and Col 11 lines 1 – 3, 22, 23 for the face) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 30, The non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of claim 21, wherein the sensors located in the vehicle detect touch-based intent signals used to indicate the intent of the individual. (Cunningham paragraph 0071 teaches, “inputs to a touch screen device installed to the vehicle, voice command inputs, inputs to a portable computerized device such as a smart phone in communication (e.g. Bluetooth communication)”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 31, A method, comprising:
determining, at a navigation component implemented using one or more computing devices, an intent of an individual permitted to provide guidance with respect to movements of a vehicle using sensors located in the vehicle; (Haynes Col 13 lines 9 – 18, 33 – 38) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
identifying, at the navigation component, based at least in part on (a) the determined intent of the individual and (b) a data set pertaining to an external environment of the vehicle, one or more vehicular movements to be implemented to proceed along a path towards a particular vehicle stopping point of a plurality of vehicle stopping points in a vicinity of a destination for the vehicle; (Haynes Col 14 lines 16 – 18) and
causing, by the navigation component, a first directive to be generated to cause one or more motion control subsystems of the vehicle to initiate at least a first vehicular movement of the one or more vehicular movements toward the particular vehicle stopping point. (Haynes Col 14 lines 16 – 18) and (Cunningham paragraph 0102 teaches, “In one embodiment, the PAL system can be immediately activated for a confirmed parking space or can be prohibited from activating for a parking space that is determined to be not wide enough. In one embodiment, the threshold width that the PAL system uses to judge a parking space can be adjustable by the driver.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 32, The method of claim 31, wherein the sensors indicate one or more gestures performed by the individual to indicate the intent of the individual. (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 33, The method of claim 31,wherein the sensors located in the vehicle comprise a camera or other sensor of a mobile device located in the vehicle. (Haynes Col 4 lines 16 – 19, Col 9 lines 62 – 67, and Col 10 Lines 27 - 31)
As per claim 34, The method of claim 31, further comprising:
determining, by the navigation component, based on one or more gestures observed by the sensors, two or more candidate stopping points from amongst the plurality of vehicle stopping points in the vicinity of the destination for the vehicle; (Haynes Col 4 lines 33 – 38) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”) and
issuing a voiced query to the individual, the voiced query providing the determined two or more candidate stopping points as selectable options; (Cunningham paragraph 0071 teaches, “voice command inputs,”) and (Haynes Col 9 lines 62 – 67) and
receiving one or more audio signals indicating a response of the individual to the voiced query. (Cunningham paragraph 0071 teaches, “voice command inputs,”) and (Haynes Col 9 lines 62 – 67)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 35, The method of claim 31, wherein the sensors indicate a gaze direction of the individual that is used to indicate the intent of the individual. (Haynes Col 10 lines 66, 67 and Col 11 lines 1 – 3, 22, 23 for the face) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 36, A system, comprising:
a navigation manager implemented at least in part at a computing device; wherein the navigation manager is configured to: (Haynes Col 6 lines 57 – 59)
determine, an intent of an individual permitted to provide guidance with respect to movements of a vehicle using sensors located in the vehicle; (Haynes Col 13 lines 9 – 18, 33 – 38) and (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
identify, based at least in part on (a) the determined intent of the individual and (b) a data set pertaining to an external environment of the vehicle, one or more vehicular movements to be implemented to proceed along a path towards a particular vehicle stopping point of a plurality of vehicle stopping points in a vicinity of a destination for the vehicle; (Haynes Col 14 lines 16 – 18) and
cause a first directive to be generated to cause one or more motion control subsystems of the vehicle to initiate at least a first vehicular movement of the one or more vehicular movements toward the particular vehicle stopping point. (Haynes Col 14 lines 16 – 18) and (Cunningham paragraph 0102 teaches, “In one embodiment, the PAL system can be immediately activated for a confirmed parking space or can be prohibited from activating for a parking space that is determined to be not wide enough. In one embodiment, the threshold width that the PAL system uses to judge a parking space can be adjustable by the driver.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 37, The system of claim 36, wherein the sensors indicate one or more gestures performed by the individual to indicate the intent of the individual. (Cunningham paragraph 0099 teaches, “Additionally or alternatively, camera device 1020 is situated on instrument panel 1000 and is configured to capture images of the driver. By analyzing images of the driver, hand gestures, visual cues, or head orientation of the driver can be used to indicate to a particular spot and can be used as inputs to the PAL system.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
As per claim 38, The system of claim 36, wherein the sensors located in the vehicle are sensors of a mobile device located in the vehicle. (Haynes Col 4 lines 16 – 19, Col 9 lines 62 – 67, and Col 10 Lines 27 - 31)
As per claim 39, The system of claim 38, wherein the computing device that implements, at least in part, the navigation manager is a computing device of the mobile device located in the vehicle. (Haynes Abstract discloses, “Further, the embodiment of the disclosed method includes transmitting a map of the parking lot to a mobile interaction device, and transmitting the parking lot information to the mobile interaction device.”)
As per claim 40, The system of claim 38, wherein the computing device that implements, at least in part, the navigation manager is a server located in a data center. (Cunningham paragraph 0074 teaches, “The communication device 204 is a device that allows the PAL module 30 to communicate with another device, such as a remote server, to update database 203 with current information on parking spaces.”)
Haynes discloses a method for managing a parking lot. Haynes does not disclose intent based upon a gesture. Cunningham teaches of identifying intent based upon a gesture. Therefore, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham et.al. into the invention of Haynes. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure guiding an operator to their desired location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664