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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Figure 10 appears to be missing a translation for “end” after step S1040. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) . If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2 and 6 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “sequentially transmitting the additional request to a local server and an additional server providing an additional service, the additional service being a service indicated by the additional request after being transmitted to the server”. Regarding the phrase “sequentially transmitting”, it is not clear if the additional request is sent to a local server and another server (e.g. two separate requests from same origin), or if the additional request is sent to a local server, then forwarded to another server. Furthermore, regarding the phrase “the server”, it is not clear which server is being referred to (e.g. previously indicated server of claim 1, a local server, an additional server, either server, etc.). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the instant specification (Figure 8 shows the local server (“OS”) as forwarding a service request to the additional server (“VA” / “value added service system”)), the claim will be treated as the additional request being transmitted to a local server, and then forwarded to a system configured to provide a service indicated by the additional request.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the additional request is transmitted before a pickup time after a service according to the AVDS reservation being completed”. Regarding the phrase “…after a service according to the AVDS reservation being completed”, it is not clear what is being completed (e.g. whether the service is being completed, or AVDS reservation process being completed). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim will be treated as a service being completed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjade et al. (US20250128698A1, filed on September 24, 2021; hereinafter Banjade) in view of Takato (US20220176945A1; hereinafter Takato).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Banjade discloses an automated valet parking service (see at least Abstract) comprising:
an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a transceiver; one or more processors configured to execute instructions and to control the transceiver to transmit or receive information on an Automated Valet Driving System (AVDS) reservation; and a memory storing the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0070 describe an apparatus (e.g. “user device 710” or “vehicle 714”) loaded with an automated valet parking application (e.g. “AVP application 722”) configured to transmit or receive information (e.g. “V2X”); Paragraph 0081 describes the apparatus as including devices that reasonably indicate using processor/memory to execute application functions (“The AVP application 722 may be installed on a user device such as a smartphone, tablet, computer, or the like, or installed in a vehicle such as on the vehicle's display console”)) to:
transmit, by the transceiver, an AVDS reservation request to a server (Figure 15 and Paragraph 0122, “In an example fifth step 1510…based on the driver's input, the vehicle 1500 may transmit a parking service context/request to park message”; Paragraph 0142 describes communication being facilitated through servers (“Additionally or alternatively, any of the messages, instructions or any of the functions carried out by the systems described herein may be at least partially implemented on cloud-based servers…”));
receive AVDS reservation information from the server, the AVDS reservation information being determined based on the AVDS reservation request [and] transmit reservation confirmation information for the AVDS reservation information to the server (Figure 15 and Paragraphs 0125-0126 describe the user receiving reservation information (e.g. “available service options”) and transmitting a confirmation (e.g. selected options) for payment/processing (“In an example ninth step 1518, the MEC platform 1346 may determine one or more available service options available to the vehicle 1500…In an example tenth step 1520…The driver may accept the default option or may choose other available service options (e.g., a car wash, car detailing, or the like). Then, the MEC platform 1346 may collect payment information, dispense a parking permit card, or the like, that grants the vehicle 1500 access to the parking facility”)).
While Banjade further discloses additional services (Paragraph 0126 describes additional services for the vehicle besides parking, including charging, washing, detailing, etc.), Banjade does not explicitly recite a separate step to transmit an additional request related to the AVDS reservation request to the server.
Nevertheless, Takato teaches an automated valet parking service (see at least Abstract) configured to:
transmit an additional request related to the AVDS reservation request to the server (Paragraphs 0063-0065, “The user X of the AVP vehicle 10 considers using additional service information ASV during the period in which the AVP vehicle 10 is left in the parking lot 1. The automated valet parking system 100 may transmit information that proposes the additional service to the terminal device 200. When it is determined that the additional service is to be used, the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include features for separately requesting the additional services, as taught by Takato, for the benefit of improving using convenience by allowing additional services to be requested at a different time.
Regarding Claim 4, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 1. Banjade does not explicitly recite: control a handover request to be transmitted to the server to hand over a control authority of a vehicle associated with the AVDS to the AVDS.
Nevertheless, Takato further teaches:
control a handover request to be transmitted to the server to hand over a control authority of a vehicle associated with the AVDS to the AVDS (Paragraph 0034, “Upon completion of the authentication, the operating authority of the AVP vehicle 10 shifts from the user X to the automated valet parking system 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the features for entrusting navigational guidance to the automated valet system (Paragraph 0108, “In an eleventh step 1522…the parking may be either fully automated when the vehicle has full autonomous driving capability, partially automated (e.g., by sending directions to the parking spot to the navigation system of the vehicle 1500)”) to incorporate handover of control authority, as taught by Takato, for the known benefit of improving user convenience by automating a parking service.
Regarding Claim 5, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 4. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request is transmitted to the server after a control authority for the vehicle is handed over to the AVDS.
Nevertheless, Takato further teaches:
wherein the additional request is transmitted to the server after a control authority for the vehicle is handed over to the AVDS (Paragraphs 0034-0036 describe handing over control authority to the automated valet parking system (“Upon completion of the authentication, the operating authority of the AVP vehicle 10 shifts from the user X to the automated valet parking system 100”) in order to travel to an assigned parking space (e.g. “parking space 4”); Paragraphs 0067-0068 describes transmitting the additional request after the control authority has been handed over (“In step S100, the automated valet parking system 100 determines whether the additional service request REQ has been received from the terminal device 200… The departure point is the parking space 4 where the AVP vehicle 10 is parked, and the destination is the additional service facility 7”) to move the vehicle from the assigned parking space to the additional service area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the automated valet parking service (see at least Figure 15) to transmit additional requests after control authority had already been transferred, as taught by Takato, for the benefit of improving user convenience by reducing perceived delays (e.g. reduce time between request and responsive action).
Regarding Claim 6, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 1. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request is transmitted before a pickup time after a service according to the AVDS reservation being completed.
Nevertheless, Takato further teaches:
wherein the additional request is transmitted before a pickup time after a service according to the AVDS reservation being completed (Paragraph 0031 describes setting up a pickup time (“the desired use time (desired entry time and desired exit time)”); Paragraphs 0065-0068 describe transmitting the additional request after a service (e.g. parking the vehicle in “parking space 4”) and before a pick up time (“The user X of the AVP vehicle 10 considers using additional service information ASV during the period in which the AVP vehicle 10 is left in the parking lot 1. The automated valet parking system 100 may transmit information that proposes the additional service to the terminal device 200. When it is determined that the additional service is to be used, the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include limiting additional requests to when the vehicle is in a parking area, as taught by Takato, for the benefit of conditionally allowing additional requests only when they can be performed (e.g. to avoid sending requests when it’s not possible).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Banjade as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 13. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request includes one or more of: a change or an addition of information related to the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; a change of information related to a service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and information on an additional service.
Nevertheless, Takato further teaches:
wherein the additional request includes one or more of: a change or an addition of information related to the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; a change of information related to a service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and information on an additional service (Paragraph 0065 describes the additional service request as including at least information on an additional service (“The additional service request REQ is information requesting the use of the additional service”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include an additional request that includes at least information on an additional service, as taught by Takato, for the known benefit of streamlining communication (e.g. avoid sending redundant messages).
Regarding Claim 9, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 1. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request indicates one or more of: the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; a service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and an additional service.
Nevertheless, Takato further teaches:
wherein the additional request indicates one or more of: the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; a service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and an additional service (Paragraph 0065 describes the additional service request as including at least indication of an additional service (“The additional service request REQ is information requesting the use of the additional service”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include an additional request that indicates an additional service, as taught by Takato, for the known benefit of streamlining communication (e.g. avoid sending redundant messages).
Regarding Claim 12, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 9. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request indicates the additional service and details for the additional service (Examiner notes that “…details for the additional service” is being interpreted as including information about the additional services, which is consistent with the instant specification (Paragraph 0174, “…details about the additional services (e.g., service time information, service type, service charge, etc.)”)).
Nevertheless, Takato further teaches:
wherein the additional request indicates the additional service and details for the additional service (Paragraph 0065 describes the additional service request as including at least information about an additional service (“The automated valet parking system 100 may transmit information that proposes the additional service to the terminal device 200. When it is determined that the additional service is to be used, the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100. The additional service request REQ is information requesting the use of the additional service”); Examiner notes that the selection of which additional services to be used reasonably indicates selection of type of service (e.g. charging, washing, etc.) being requested).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include an additional request that includes details of an additional service, as taught by Takato, for the known benefit of streamlining communication (e.g. avoid sending redundant messages).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjade in view of Takato and Nakagawa et al. (US20240010088A1, filed on September 21, 2023; hereinafter Nakagawa).
Regarding Claim 2, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 1. Banjade does not explicitly recite: sequentially transmitting the additional request to a local server and an additional server providing an additional service, the additional service being a service indicated by the additional request after being transmitted to the server.
Nevertheless, Nakagawa teaches an automated valet parking service (see at least Abstract) comprising:
sequentially transmitting the additional request to a local server and an additional server providing an additional service, the additional service being a service indicated by the additional request after being transmitted to the server (Paragraph 0077 describes additional requests (“The service information is information indicating a service requested by the user, such as, for example, the charging service, the car wash service, and the fueling service as described above”); Figures 6-7 describes sequentially transmitting the additional requests (e.g. with reference to Figures 6-7 shown below, Step S7 describes transmitting the additional request (“service information”) to a local server (“Control Server 4”) and Step S21 describes forwarding the additional request (“service information”) to an additional server for facilitating the additional services (“During-Parking Service Server 3”)).
PNG
media_image1.png
869
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the communication between servers for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 7) to include features for sequentially transmitting information, as taught by Nakagawa, for the known benefit of reducing computational burden to any single computing device by splitting processing between servers.
Regarding Claim 3, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 2. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein a response to the additional request is determined by the local server.
Nevertheless, Nakagawa further teaches:
wherein a response to the additional request is determined by the local server (Paragraphs 0178-0181 describe the local server (e.g. “control server 4”) transmitting a traveling route in response to the additional request, such as a charging request (“…in a case where there is a parking space at which inductive charging can be performed…calculates a traveling route of vehicle 140 to the parking space… Next, in step S12, control server 4 transmits route information on the traveling route to vehicle 140”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the communication between servers for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 7) to increase processing responsibility to a local server, as taught by Nakagawa, for the known benefit of reducing computational burden to any single computing device by distributing processing between servers.
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjade in view of Takato and Hidaka (US20220203969A1; hereinafter Hidaka).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Banjade as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 13. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request is configured to indicate a change of a service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information.
Nevertheless, Hidaka teaches features for implementing automated valet parking (see at least Paragraph 0026):
wherein the additional request is configured to indicate a change of a service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information (Figures 4-5 and Paragraphs 0048-0059 describe an additional request for cancelling a parking service (“…In S24, the first cancellation guidance unit 47B of the management device 39 determines whether there is an exit request signal. That is, it is determined whether the exit request signal based on the user's exit request has been received after the parking request and before the autonomous driving vehicle 18 arrives in the parking position. The exit request corresponds to a parking cancellation request which is a request to cancel the parking request”) which is reasonably indicative of a change of service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include an additional request that cancels a parking request, as taught by Hidaka, for the known benefit of improving user convenience by allowing cancellations.
Regarding Claim 10, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 9. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request indicates one of: a request for a change or an addition of details of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and a cancellation of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information.
Nevertheless, Hidaka teaches features for implementing automated valet parking (see at least Paragraph 0026):
wherein the additional request indicates one of: a request for a change or an addition of details of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and a cancellation of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information (Figures 4-5 and Paragraphs 0048-0059 describe an additional request for cancelling the original parking request (“…In S24, the first cancellation guidance unit 47B of the management device 39 determines whether there is an exit request signal. That is, it is determined whether the exit request signal based on the user's exit request has been received after the parking request and before the autonomous driving vehicle 18 arrives in the parking position. The exit request corresponds to a parking cancellation request which is a request to cancel the parking request”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include an additional request that cancels a parking request, as taught by Hidaka, for the known benefit of improving user convenience by allowing cancellations.
Regarding Claim 11, Banjade as currently modified teaches claim 9. Banjade does not explicitly recite: wherein the additional request indicates one or more of: a request for a change of the service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; a change of details of the service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and a cancellation of the service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information.
Nevertheless, Hidaka teaches features for implementing automated valet parking (see at least Paragraph 0026):
wherein the additional request indicates one or more of: a request for a change of the service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; a change of details of the service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information; and a cancellation of the service of the AVDS reservation included in the reservation confirmation information (Figures 4-5 and Paragraphs 0048-0059 describe an additional request for cancelling a parking service (“…In S24, the first cancellation guidance unit 47B of the management device 39 determines whether there is an exit request signal. That is, it is determined whether the exit request signal based on the user's exit request has been received after the parking request and before the autonomous driving vehicle 18 arrives in the parking position. The exit request corresponds to a parking cancellation request which is a request to cancel the parking request”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Banjade invention to expand the reservation process for automated valet parking and additional services (see at least Figure 15) to include an additional request that cancels a parking request, as taught by Hidaka, for the known benefit of improving user convenience by allowing cancellations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669