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 10/10/2024, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18911983.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 10/10/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed 10/10/2024 and 12/23/2025 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.
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.
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 12 and 18 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 18 recite, respectively, the limitations: “12. The method of claim 11” and “18. The system of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner interprets, respectively, as: “12. The system of claim 11” and “18. The system of claim 11”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 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; 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.
[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; 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.
[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; 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.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Imazu et al. (US 20230103109 A1) hereinafter referred to as Imazu.
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 (¶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).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, 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 (¶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).
Imazu teaches:
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, 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 (¶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 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 5. The method of claim 3, wherein assigning the priority classification to the at least a portion of the one or more parking lots includes: 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 (¶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.).
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 11-19 and 20, the system and computer-based tool tracks the method of claims 1-9 and 1, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-9 and 1 are applied to claims 11-19 and 20, respectively. Imazu discloses that the embodiment may be found as a system and computer-based tool (Figs. 3-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250002062 A1
LIU; Fengbo et al.
METHOD FOR COMPILATION OF URBAN RAIL TRANSIT OUTBOUND AND INBOUND OPERATION LINES WITH COORDINATION OF MULTIPLE DEPOTS
US 20230007439 A1
WILLIAMS; David H. et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROACTIVELY PREEMPTING/MITIGATING AXIETY-RELATED BEHAVIORS AND ASSOCIATED ISSUES/EVENTS
CA 3153593 A1
VUJANIC ROBIN et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATION OF RAILWAY SYSTEMS
US 10943318 B2
Benedict; Albert James
Rail car terminal facility staging process
DE 102016219698 A1
HANSELMANN MICHAEL
Parking management system
US 20180060775 A1
Singhal; Mudita et al.
System And Method For Visualizing Parking Enforcement Officer Movement In Real Time With The Aid Of A Digital Computer
US 9123239 B2
Kurzhanskiy; Alex A.
Estimation of hourly traffic flow profiles using speed data and annual average daily traffic data
US 20140236957 A1
Rieppi; Stefano
System and method for terminal capacity management
US 20140089032 A1
BELL; David
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20020082893 A1
Barts, Dennis et al.
Delivery system and method for vehicles and the like
NPL
Tomas Lidén
Coordinating maintenance windows and train traffic: a case study
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 5712723955. 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