The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 06/04/2026, the following is a Final Office Action for Application No. 18911983.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 are cancelled.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18911983 filed 10/10/2024 is a Continuation in Part of 18501608, filed 11/03/2023, now U.S. Patent # 12217199 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 04/16/2026, 05/01/2026, and 06/17/2026 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection, and hence the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
As per the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong One of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Since the recitation of the claims falls into at least one of the above Groupings, there is a basis for providing further analysis with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether the recitation of an abstract idea is deduced to being directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong Two of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and/or memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, processor and/or memory medium to inter alia perform the function of transmitting a control signal is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, the present claims use a generic processing device and memory medium to inter alia perform the function of transmitting a control signal which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The processor is merely used to perform the function(s), and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Step 2B, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor and/or memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, processor and/or memory medium to inter alia perform the function of transmitting a control signal is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include the non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of MPEP § 2106.05. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
In an effort to further expedite prosecution, see: Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, October 2019 30, Example 46. Livestock Management. Per claim 1 of Example 46, the memory, display and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. As an exemplary direction for similar claim limitations to be eligible, see claims 2-4 of Example 46.
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, 4, 6-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In adhering to the 2019 PEG, Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
A method of adaptively classifying parking lots associated with a hub, comprising: obtaining one or more characteristics associated with at least a portion of one or more parking lots associated with the hub; obtaining one or more characteristics of an operating schedule associated with the hub; assigning a priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based, at least in part, on the one or more characteristics associated with the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more characteristics of the operating schedule associated with the hub, wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: assigning a first priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the first priority classification for the duration of the first time period; and assigning a second priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a second time period different from the first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the second priority classification for the duration of the second time period; and assigning a unit to a parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based on a determination that a unit classification of the unit corresponds to the priority classification assigned to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots, wherein the unit classification of the unit is based on a dwell time of the unit within the hub, wherein assigning the unit to the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: transmitting a control signal to actuate a transporting device to position the unit into the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots.
[or]
A system for adaptively classifying parking lots associated with a hub, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory operably coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to perform operations including: obtaining one or more characteristics associated with at least a portion of one or more parking lots associated with the hub; obtaining one or more characteristics of an operating schedule associated with the hub; assigning a priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based, at least in part, on the one or more characteristics associated with the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more characteristics of the operating schedule associated with the hub, wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: assigning a first priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the first priority classification for the duration of the first time period; and assigning a second priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a second time period different from the first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the second priority classification for the duration of the second time period; and assigning a unit to a parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based on a determination that a unit classification of the unit corresponds to the priority classification assigned to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots, wherein the unit classification of the unit is based on a dwell time of the unit within the hub, wherein assigning the unit to the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: transmitting a control signal to actuate a transporting device to position the unit into the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots.
[or]
A computer-based tool for adaptively classifying parking lots associated with a hub, the computer-based tool including non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing device to perform operations comprising: obtaining one or more characteristics associated with at least a portion of one or more parking lots associated with the hub; obtaining one or more characteristics of an operating schedule associated with the hub; assigning a priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based, at least in part, on the one or more characteristics associated with the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more characteristics of the operating schedule associated with the hub, wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: assigning a first priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the first priority classification for the duration of the first time period; and assigning a second priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a second time period different from the first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the second priority classification for the duration of the second time period; and assigning a unit to a parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based on a determination that a unit classification of the unit corresponds to the priority classification assigned to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots, wherein the unit classification of the unit is based on a dwell time of the unit within the hub, wherein assigning the unit to the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: transmitting a control signal to actuate a transporting device to position the unit into the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and/or memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor and/or memory medium limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, generating a signal by a processor and/or memory medium is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor and memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, generating a signal by a processor and/or memory medium is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0122 wherein “performed with a general-purpose processor”. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 (and similar claims) state transmitting a control signal to actuate a transporting device; however, this transmission of data is a computer function that may incorporate an intended function of certain methods of organizing human activity to position the unit into the parking slot. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (US 20230103109 A1) hereinafter referred to as Imazu in view of Smullin et al. (US 20140089016 A1) hereinafter referred to as Smullin.
Imazu teaches:
Claim 1. A method of adaptively classifying parking lots associated with a hub, comprising:
obtaining one or more characteristics associated with at least a portion of one or more parking lots associated with the hub (¶0047 The parking priority is determined according to, for example, the parking time and the remaining capacity of a battery. For example, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking lot usage fee that can be collected from the user. Therefore, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking priority. In the case where a power supply device is installed in the parking space 3 and the battery is to be charged while parking, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the need for charging. Accordingly, in this case, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the parking priority);
obtaining one or more characteristics of an operating schedule associated with the hub (¶0048 In this modification, information on the parking priority is sent to the pickup and drop-off management server 8 when making a drop-off reservation. In this case, the parking time is calculated from the scheduled drop-off and pickup times that are sent to the pickup and drop-off management server 8 when making a drop-off reservation. When it is desired to charge the battery while parking, a request to use the power supply device and information on the parking priority that is composed of the remaining capacity of the battery are sent to the pickup and drop-off management server 8 when making a drop-off reservation);
assigning a priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based, at least in part, on the one or more characteristics associated with the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more characteristics of the operating schedule associated with the hub, wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes:assigning a first priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the first priority classification for the duration of the first time period; andassigning a second priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a second time period different from the first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the second priority classification for the duration of the second time period (¶0024 FIG. 3 shows the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 3, the pickup and drop-off management server 8 includes an electronic control unit 10. The electronic control unit 10 is a digital computer, and includes a central processing unit (CPU) (microprocessor) 12, a memory 13 composed of a read-only memory (ROM) and a random access memory (RAM), and an input/output port 14. The CPU 12, the memory 13, and the input/output port 14 are connected to each other by a bidirectional bus 11. As shown in FIG. 3, the image signals captured by the infrastructure sensors S1, S2, S3, and S4 are input to the electronic control unit 10. The memory 13 of the electronic control unit 10 stores map data of the parking lot 1 ¶0032 Referring to FIG. 6, the electronic control unit 24 first acquires the movement destination set by the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in step 50. The electronic control unit 24 then acquires the travel route set by the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in step 51, and acquires the travel trajectory and travel speed set by the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in step 52. In step 53, the electronic control unit 24 then performs travel control for the autonomous vehicle 6 along the set travel trajectory ¶0047 FIGS. 11 and 12 show a modification of the embodiment shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. In this modification, an index called parking priority is introduced for the use of a desired parking space 3. When an autonomous vehicle 6 has high parking priority, the autonomous vehicle 6 is allowed to have priority use of the desired parking space 3. The parking priority is determined according to, for example, the parking time and the remaining capacity of a battery. For example, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking lot usage fee that can be collected from the user. Therefore, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking priority. In the case where a power supply device is installed in the parking space 3 and the battery is to be charged while parking, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the need for charging. Accordingly, in this case, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the parking priority ¶0052 Referring to FIG. 12, when the electronic control unit 10 determines in step 65 that no other vehicle is parked in the desired parking space 3 and therefore the desired parking space 3 is available for parking, and determines in step 66 that the desired parking space 3 is not reserved by another user, the routine proceeds to step 66a. In step 66a, the electronic control unit 10 determines whether the parking priority is higher than set parking priority XD that is set in advance. For example, the electronic control unit 10 determines whether the parking time is longer than set parking time that is set in advance or whether the remaining capacity of the battery is lower than a set remaining capacity that is set in advance. ); and
assigning a unit to a parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based on a determination that a unit classification of the unit corresponds to the priority classification assigned to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots, wherein the unit classification of the unit is based on a dwell time of the unit within the hub, (¶0053 When the electronic control unit 10 determines in step 66a that the parking priority is higher than the set parking priority XD, such as when the electronic control unit 10 determines that the parking time is longer than the set parking time or when the electronic control unit 10 determines that the remaining capacity of the battery is lower than the set remaining capacity, the routine proceeds to step 67, and the electronic control unit 10 reserves the desired parking space 3 for the autonomous vehicle 6. In step 68, the electronic control unit 10 takes the parking prohibition measures to prohibit parking of other vehicles in the desired parking space 3. On the other hand, when the electronic control unit 10 determines in step 66a that the parking priority is lower than the set parking priority XD, such as when the electronic control unit 10 determines that the parking time is shorter than the set parking time or when the electronic control unit 10 determines that the remaining capacity of the battery is higher than the set remaining capacity, the routine proceeds to step 69, and the electronic control unit 10 sends a notification that the desired parking space 3 is not available for parking to the autonomous vehicle 6 or the user's mobile terminal. ¶0032 Referring to FIG. 6, the electronic control unit 24 first acquires the movement destination set by the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in step 50. The electronic control unit 24 then acquires the travel route set by the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in step 51, and acquires the travel trajectory and travel speed set by the pickup and drop-off management server 8 in step 52. In step 53, the electronic control unit 24 then performs travel control for the autonomous vehicle 6 along the set travel trajectory),
wherein assigning the unit to the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: transmitting a control signal to actuate a transporting device to position the unit into the parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots (¶0053 when the electronic control unit 10 determines in step 66a that the parking priority is lower than the set parking priority XD, such as when the electronic control unit 10 determines that the parking time is shorter than the set parking time or when the electronic control unit 10 determines that the remaining capacity of the battery is higher than the set remaining capacity, the routine proceeds to step 69, and the electronic control unit 10 sends a notification that the desired parking space 3 is not available for parking to the autonomous vehicle 6 or the user's mobile terminal).
Although not explicitly taught by Imazu, Smullin teaches in the analogous art of system for managing interchangeable EV charging-capable parking spaces:
wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes:assigning a first priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the first priority classification for the duration of the first time period; andassigning a second priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots for a second time period different from the first time period, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots is classified with the second priority classification for the duration of the second time period (Figs. 4A-5B and ¶0065 The number of available parking spaces 13b-c in the parking pool 12 for the requested start time is determined (step 75), as further described infra with reference to FIG. 5. If no parking spaces 13b-c are available (step 76), the reservation request fails and the motorist is notified of the parking service's inability to grant the request (step 77). In a further embodiment, the parking services 33 optionally offers alternative parking options within the general area of the parking pool 12 (step 78), which includes identifying other parking pools 12 within a set distance of the requested parking location with at least a specified amount of time available at the desired start time. If denied, a parking with charging reservation, the motorist could request to be added to the waitlist. ¶0089 To determine if the charging stations 21a-c will have charging capacity available at the requested location during the time window set by the requested parking with charging reservation, the parking services 33 first retrieves the set of parking with charging reservations 35 for the parking pool 12 that overlap the requested reservation in which the reserving motorist's vehicle has not yet arrived and the parking with charging contracts 36 for the currently-occupied parking spaces 13c in the parking pool 12, if applicable, and the total number 38 of parking spaces 13a-c in the parking-with-charging portion of the parking pool 12 (step 131). The requested reservation time, as requested by the motorist, is also received (step 132). A scheduling algorithm is run against the unfulfilled parking with charging reservations 35, either for all of the parking spaces 13a-c if the parking pools 12 is not apportioned, or against the parking-with-charging portion of the parking pool 12, and the parking with charging contracts 36 for currently-occupied parking spaces 13c (step 133). Scheduling is based on the active charging provided to the parking spaces 13a-c in the parking pool; even though all of the parking spaces 13a-c in a parking pool 12 have equal access to the charging stations 21a-c, the charging stations 21a-c assigned to the parking pool 12 could have an aggregate charging capacity that is less than what is needed to simultaneously power the total number of ports 22a-c, so an EV 11 could be plugged-in, but not actively charging, pending the freeing up of charging capacity. If the scheduling algorithm succeeds (step 134) so that all reservations, including the reservation that is being requested at the moment, have the requested time for active charging, the reservation request for parking with charging is granted (step 136). ¶0091 In one embodiment, the parking services 33 uses an earliest deadline first scheduling algorithm, although other scheduling algorithms could be used. Here, whichever EV 11 has the earliest deadline, which is the end of the reservation period, has priority to begin charging first. If all deadlines are met, the scheduling is successful. If not, the scheduling has failed and the requested additional charging request will be unworkable. The algorithm can embody the notion that until an EV 11 is actively being charged, the charging can be rescheduled within the given reservation. In a further embodiment, a simpler scheduling algorithm is employed, which uses a schedule that is fixed at any point in time for any parking with charging reservations that have already been made. When a new parking with charging reservation is requested, the parking services 33 looks for a block of time within the requested parking reservation window in which there is available charging capacity. If more than one qualifying block of time is available, the scheduling algorithm choose the first block of time available, although other time block selection criteria could be used.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing interchangeable EV charging-capable parking spaces of Smullin with the parking lot management system of Imazu for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Imazu ¶0003 teaches that it is desirable to compare parking priority of autonomous vehicles;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Imazu teaches a parking lot management system for managing a parking lot intended for autonomous vehicles and manually driven vehicles, and Smullin teaches a centralized server-based system for managing and reserving parking spaces and treats sets of parking spaces as interchangeable pooled resources; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Imazu at least the above cited paragraphs, and Smullin at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system for managing interchangeable EV charging-capable parking spaces of Smullin with the parking lot management system of Imazu. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein assigning the unit to the parking slot includes: receiving the unit at the hub during the first time period; classifying the unit into the unit classification based on the dwell time of the unit within the hub; determining that the unit classification of the unit corresponds to the first priority classification; and assigning the unit to a parking slot within the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots based on the determination that the unit classification of the unit corresponds to the first priority classification assigned to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots (¶0047 FIGS. 11 and 12 show a modification of the embodiment shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. In this modification, an index called parking priority is introduced for the use of a desired parking space 3. When an autonomous vehicle 6 has high parking priority, the autonomous vehicle 6 is allowed to have priority use of the desired parking space 3. The parking priority is determined according to, for example, the parking time and the remaining capacity of a battery. For example, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking lot usage fee that can be collected from the user. Therefore, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking priority. In the case where a power supply device is installed in the parking space 3 and the battery is to be charged while parking, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the need for charging. Accordingly, in this case, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the parking priority.).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristics associated with the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots associated with the hub include one or more of: a distance between the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and one or more production tracks, wherein the one or more production tracks are configured to enable assembly of trains for transporting units out of the hub to a destination; a direction of flow of traffic between the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more production tracks; restrictions in the flow of traffic between the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more production tracks; maintenance operations affecting the flow of traffic between the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots and the one or more production tracks; and ease of access to the one or more production tracks from the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots (¶0047 The parking priority is determined according to, for example, the parking time and the remaining capacity of a battery. For example, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking lot usage fee that can be collected from the user. Therefore, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking priority. In the case where a power supply device is installed in the parking space 3 and the battery is to be charged while parking, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the need for charging. Accordingly, in this case, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the parking priority.).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristics of the operating schedule associated with the hub include one or more of: a number of units expected to arrive at the hub during each time increment of a planning horizon of a time-space network associated with the operating schedule; a number of units expected to depart the hub during each time increment of the planning horizon of the time-space network associated with the operating schedule; a variation on a number of units processed within the hub over a plurality of seasons; and variations of availability of resources during each time increment of the planning horizon of the time-space network associated with the operating schedule (¶0048 In this modification, information on the parking priority is sent to the pickup and drop-off management server 8 when making a drop-off reservation. In this case, the parking time is calculated from the scheduled drop-off and pickup times that are sent to the pickup and drop-off management server 8 when making a drop-off reservation. When it is desired to charge the battery while parking, a request to use the power supply device and information on the parking priority that is composed of the remaining capacity of the battery are sent to the pickup and drop-off management server 8 when making a drop-off reservation.).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots associated with the hub includes one or more of: an entirety of a first parking lot; an entirety of a second parking lot; a first portion of the first parking lot; a second portion of the first parking lot; a first portion of the second parking lot; and a second portion of the second parking lot (¶0034 When picking up the vehicle (autonomous vehicle) from the parking lot 1, the time it takes for the vehicle to move from the parking space 3 to the pickup and drop-off area 5 by autonomous vehicle, namely the time required for pickup, is shorter when the vehicle is parked in a parking space 3 near the pickup and drop-off area 5 than when the vehicle is parked in a parking space 3 far from the pickup and drop-off area 5. It is therefore considered that users who use the automatic parking service often desire a parking space 3 near the pickup and drop-off area 5 as a parking space 3 for their vehicle when parking their vehicle in the parking lot 1.).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots associated with the hub includes a first portion of the one or more parking lots associated with the hub and a second portion of the one or more parking lots associated with the hub, and wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: assigning a first priority classification to the first portion of the one or more parking lots; and assigning a second priority classification to the second portion of the one or more parking lots, wherein the second priority classification is different from the first priority classification (¶0052 Referring to FIG. 12, when the electronic control unit 10 determines in step 65 that no other vehicle is parked in the desired parking space 3 and therefore the desired parking space 3 is available for parking, and determines in step 66 that the desired parking space 3 is not reserved by another user, the routine proceeds to step 66a. In step 66a, the electronic control unit 10 determines whether the parking priority is higher than set parking priority XD that is set in advance. For example, the electronic control unit 10 determines whether the parking time is longer than set parking time that is set in advance or whether the remaining capacity of the battery is lower than a set remaining capacity that is set in advance.).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first priority classification has a higher priority than the second priority classification indicating that assigning the unit to a parking slot within the first portion of the one or more parking lots results in the dwell time of the unit being smaller than the dwell time of the unit resulting from assigning the unit to a parking slot within the second portion of the one or more parking lots (¶0047 FIGS. 11 and 12 show a modification of the embodiment shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. In this modification, an index called parking priority is introduced for the use of a desired parking space 3. When an autonomous vehicle 6 has high parking priority, the autonomous vehicle 6 is allowed to have priority use of the desired parking space 3. The parking priority is determined according to, for example, the parking time and the remaining capacity of a battery. For example, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking lot usage fee that can be collected from the user. Therefore, the longer the parking time, the higher the parking priority. In the case where a power supply device is installed in the parking space 3 and the battery is to be charged while parking, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the need for charging. Accordingly, in this case, the lower the remaining capacity of the battery, the higher the parking priority.).
As per claims 11, 14, and 16-19 and 20, the system and computer-based tool tracks the method of claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 1, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 1 are applied to claims 11, 14, and 16-19 and 20, respectively. Imazu discloses that the embodiment may be found as a system and computer-based tool (Figs. 3-4).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 5712726787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights