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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s Note: The current numbering of claims omits claim 16. Appropriate correction of claim numbering is required. Examiner respectfully points to CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Examiner has not renumbered claims for the purposes of this action.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner respectfully notes that no patentable weight is given to the recitation of an “AI-based” parking service in the preamble of each claim, as the claims are devoid of any mention of AI, do not involve AI, and in no way rely on AI to perform the claims. Therefore, the recitation of AI in the preamble does not breathe life into the remainder of the claim, and no patentable weight is afforded to this term here.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
As per claim 20, the claim recites that “the system transmits an image of the parking lot. . . to the server.” However, the only “system recited by the claims is the entire system recited in the preamble. It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the “system” is to transmit the image to the server, if the server itself is part of the system. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how a server may transmit an image to itself, or which component of the system itself does the transmitting of the image, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention, and claim 20 is rejected 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.
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 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 20 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and a machine, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 11, and 20, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
(b) a process of matching and storing an entry time and the parking area identification information to complete entry of a vehicle, identifying location information stored in association with the parking area identification information, and (claims 1, 11, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could match and store entry times and identification information and identify location information stored in association therewith; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers)
transmitting a vehicle entry completion message to the user device when the user device inputs and transmits a mobile number, a vehicle number, and payment method information to the server; (claims 1, 11, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could indicate an entry complete message to a user when they input this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers)
and (c) a process of performing an exit process of the vehicle connected to the user device and paying a parking fee based on the payment method information when a vehicle exit signal is received from the user device or it is determined that the vehicle has exited based on a signal received from a CCTV installed in the parking area. (claims 1, 11, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform an exit process when a vehicle exit signal is received; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers)
(a) if a camera is installed in a parking lot, a process of checking a vacant parking area in the parking lot, identification information of the parking area, and a location of the parking area, providing information about the location of the vacant parking area to a user device by displaying the information on a map, and providing a service capable of providing guidance of a route from a current location of the user device to the vacant parking area; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check vacant parkin areas, identification information and locations of parking areas and provide routing instructions to a user on a map; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers)
. . . checks identification information when receiving an image of a QR code provided in the parking area from the user device, (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers)
when the server receives a vehicle exit signal from the user device or it is determined that the vehicle has exited based on a signal received from a CCTV installed in the parking area, the server performs an exit process of the vehicle connected to the user device and pays a parking fee based on the payment method information. (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform an exit process when a vehicle exit signal is received from either of these sources; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A method for providing an AI-based parking system using a QR code, which is performed by a server, comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
(a) a process of scanning a QR code installed in a parking area using a user device and transmitting parking area identification information to the server; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the use of a QR code to scan information amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a QR code to gather information since the QR code here is used in its ordinary capacity to merely gather information into the system, and the claim merely recites the solution or outcome of scanning the code without indicating how the scanning of the code is performed)
to/from a user device (claims 1, 11, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
to/from a server (claims 1, 11, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A server for providing an AI-based parking service using a QR code, comprising: a memory that stores a program related to a method for providing the AI-based parking service using the QR code; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the use of a QR code to scan information amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a QR code to gather information since the QR code here is used in its ordinary capacity to merely gather information into the system, and the claim merely recites the solution or outcome of scanning the code without indicating how the scanning of the code is performed)
and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the method includes: (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A system for providing an AI-based parking service using a QR code, comprising: (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the use of a QR code to scan information amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a QR code to gather information since the QR code here is used in its ordinary capacity to merely gather information into the system, and the claim merely recites the solution or outcome of scanning the code without indicating how the scanning of the code is performed)
a camera installed in a parking lot; (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a server, wherein the system transmits an image of the parking lot captured by the camera to the server, the server (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the use of a camera to receive an image amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using camera to gather information since the camera here is used in its ordinary capacity to merely gather information into the system, and the claim merely recites the solution or outcome of taking an image without indicating how the step is performed)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2, 4-6, 12, and 14-15, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 12:
a process of transmitting an additional identification code of a current location to the server by the user device or receiving previously stored location information or a GPS value from the user device and providing guide information for the user to move to a parking location of the vehicle based on the current location of the user device before the process (c).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive location information and provide guide information for a user to move to a certain location; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers.
Claim 4:
wherein if a camera is installed in a parking lot, the method further includes: a process of checking a vacant parking area in the parking lot, identification information of the parking area, and a location of the parking area;
a process of providing information about the location of the vacant parking area to the user device by displaying the information on a map;
and a process of providing a service capable of providing guidance of a route from a current location of the user device to the vacant parking area before the process (a).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check vacant parking areas and provide identifications of such along with maps and route guidance to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers.
Claims 5 and 14:
wherein if a camera is installed in a parking lot, the process (c) includes: a process of checking identification information of the vehicle when the vehicle leaves a predetermined parking area, detecting an exit time of the vehicle through the camera, calculating a time elapsed from the previously stored entry time, and making automatic payment for an amount corresponding to a parking duration based on the payment method information;
and a process of transmitting, to the user device, a message indicative of a result of the automatic payment when the automatic payment is completed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check identification information of a vehicle when they leave a parking area, determine an exit time, calculate a fee, charge the fee, and send a user a confirmation thereof; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers.
Claims 6 and 15:
wherein the process (c-1) further includes a process of providing a current location, a parking location, and a moving route to the user device by displaying them on a map of the parking lot and displaying the current location of the user device on the moving route by using at least one of a GPS, an accelerometer, and a gyro sensor in the user device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a current location and parking location along with maps and route guidance to a user based on this type of sensor data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial parking service companies would perform this step in managing parking services for customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2, 4-6, 12, and 14-15, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180350157; hereinafter "Koreishi") in view of Heo et al. (Korean Patent Document No. KR 20220013216 A; hereinafter "Heo").
As per claim 1, Koreishi teaches:
A method for providing an AI-based parking system using a QR code, which is performed by a server, comprising:
Koreishi teaches a system and method for automated parking processing using a QR code. (Koreishi: paragraph [0046], abstract)
Examiner’s Note: Examiner respectfully notes that no patentable weight is given to the recitation of an “AI-based” parking service as the claims are devoid of any mention of AI, do not involve AI, and in no way rely on AI to perform the claims. Therefore, the recitation of AI does not breathe life into the remainder of the claim, and no patentable weight is afforded to this term here.
(a) a process of scanning a QR code installed in a parking area using a user device and transmitting parking area identification information to the server;
Koreishi teaches that a user device may initiate parking by scanning a QR code 41a, 42a, 43a, at a corresponding parking space 41, 42, 43. (Koreishi: paragraph [0046-47], Figs. 2-3) Koreishi teaches that information which identifies the parking space may be gleaned from the code. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-47]) Koreishi further teaches that the parking identification information may thereafter be transmitted to a processing server. (Koreishi: paragraph [0056], Fig. 2, 4)
(b) a process of matching and storing an entry time and the parking area identification information to complete entry of a vehicle, identifying location information stored in association with the parking area identification information, and
Koreishi teaches that the server may store an entry time and parking location information include a parking lot and parking space that the user is parked in. (Koreishi: paragraph [0070, 72-74, 154-156], Fig. 7)
With respect to the following limitation:
transmitting a vehicle entry completion message to the user device when the user device inputs and transmits a mobile number, a vehicle number, and payment method information to the server;
Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Koreishi further teaches that, once parking begins, a notification of the start of parking may be sent to the user terminal. (Koreishi: paragraph [0088-90]) Koreishi, however, does not appear to teach the input of this information including payment information from the user device.
Heo, however, teaches that a user interface may be used for registering a user with a parking application wherein the user may enter in their information for parking which includes payment details to be automatically charged for the parking transaction. (Heo: paragraphs [0085-86]) Heo teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi for the benefit of significantly improving user convenience. (Heo: paragraph [0051, 104]) Heo further teaches the benefit of providing a system that can further improve the recognition and identification reliability of parked vehicles and a street parking management system including the same . (Heo: paragraph [0008]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Heo with the teachings of Koreishi to achieve the aforementioned benefits. '
Koreishi in view of Heo further teaches:
and (c) a process of performing an exit process of the vehicle connected to the user device and paying a parking fee based on the payment method information when a vehicle exit signal is received from the user device or it is determined that the vehicle has exited based on a signal received from a CCTV installed in the parking area.
Koreishi teaches that a sensor in the user device may detect when the parking has been ended based on the fact that the vehicle has moved from the parking space. (Koreishi: paragraph [0051-54, 56-57]) Heo further teaches that a CCTV camera may be used to detect the entrance and exit of a vehicle into a parking space, wherein when the vehicle exits a parking space, an automatic fee payment may be triggered using the stored payment information. (Heo: paragraphs [0012, 21, 68, 99-100], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Patel, Yash (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20230118743; hereinafter "Patel").
As per claim 2, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
a process of transmitting an additional identification code of a current location to the server by the user device or receiving previously stored location information or a GPS value from the user device and providing guide information for the user to move to a parking location of the vehicle based on the current location of the user device before the process (c).
Koreishi further teaches that, prior to the scanning of the code, a mobile terminal may use a GPS system to acquire its current location. (Koreishi: paragraph [0050]) Koreishi, however, does not appear to teach the use of such to navigate the user to the parking lot.
Patel, however, teaches that a user searching for a parking spot (at which they will scan a QR code) may send GPS information to a server who returns the available spots back to the user and may display navigation instructions to a selected spot to a mapping application on the user device. (Patel: paragraphs [0031, 50-51], Fig. 3) Patel teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo for the benefit of helping businesses manage their locations and optimize use of the parking locations. (Patel: paragraph [0018]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patel with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 6, Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Patel teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the process (c-1) further includes a process of providing a current location, a parking location, and a moving route to the user device by displaying them on a map of the parking lot and displaying the current location of the user device on the moving route by using at least one of a GPS, an accelerometer, and a gyro sensor in the user device.
Koreishi further teaches that, prior to the scanning of the code, a mobile terminal may use a GPS system to acquire its current location. (Koreishi: paragraph [0050]) Patel, as outlined above, teaches that a user searching for a parking spot (at which they will scan a QR code) may send GPS information to a server who returns the available spots back to the user and may display navigation instructions to a selected spot to a mapping application on the user device. (Patel: paragraphs [0031, 50-51], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Patel persists. Heo further teaches the presentation of the user's location and a parking location on a map. (Heo: paragraph [0090-91]) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Lim, Kyungtaek (Korean Patent Document No. KR 20200006464 A; hereinafter "Lim").
As per claim 3, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
a process of attaching a printout of an additional identification code at each location in a parking lot and transmitting the additional identification code to the server when the user device recognizes the additional identification code before the process (c-1),
Koreishi further teaches that a code may be attached to and associated with each parking space, and the user device may scan any of the codes which may send location information to the server device. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-48])
To be thorough, and to the extent that Koreishi does not explicitly teach that the QR code is printed and attached, Lim teaches this element. Lim teaches that a QR code used in the context of parking vehicles may be printed and attached to a location. (Lim: paragraph [0027]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Heo, or by Lim. Printing out the QR code and attaching it to the location in Koreishi does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Lim further teaches:
wherein the additional identification code includes information about a current location in a parking lot.
Koreishi further teaches that a code may be attached to and associated with each parking space, and the user device may scan any of the codes which may send location information to the server device. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-48])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Cheng, Guangwei (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 112393738 A; hereinafter "Cheng").
As per claim 4, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein if a camera is installed in a parking lot, the method further includes: a process of checking a vacant parking area in the parking lot, identification information of the parking area, and a location of the parking area;
Cheng, however, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) Cheng teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo for the benefit of allowing a user to easily find a parking space and reducing competition for spaces amongst users. (Cheng: paragraph [0024]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Lim further teaches:
a process of providing information about the location of the vacant parking area to the user device by displaying the information on a map;
Cheng, as outlined above, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
and a process of providing a service capable of providing guidance of a route from a current location of the user device to the vacant parking area before the process (a).
Cheng, as outlined above, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Lynam et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20140278839; hereinafter "Lynam").
As per claim 5, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein if a camera is installed in a parking lot, the process (c) includes: a process of checking identification information of the vehicle when the vehicle leaves a predetermined parking area, detecting an exit time of the vehicle through the camera, calculating a time elapsed from the previously stored entry time, and making automatic payment for an amount corresponding to a parking duration based on the payment method information;
Koreishi teaches that a sensor in the user device may detect when the parking has been ended based on the fact that the vehicle has moved from the parking space. (Koreishi: paragraph [0051-54, 56-57]) Heo further teaches that a CCTV camera may be used to detect the entrance and exit of a vehicle into a parking space, wherein when the vehicle exits a parking space, an automatic fee payment may be triggered using the stored payment information. (Heo: paragraphs [0012, 21, 68, 99-100], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
Koreishi in view of Heo does not appear to explicitly teach:
and a process of transmitting, to the user device, a message indicative of a result of the automatic payment when the automatic payment is completed.
Lynam, however, teaches that after a payment has been charged for parking, a confirmation of payment may be sent to a user device. (Lynam: paragraph [0069]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Heo, or by Lynam. Displaying a payment confirmation after charging the fee in the manner taught by Heo does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lynam with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Patel and further in view of Cheng.
As per claim 7, Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Patel teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein in the process (c-1), the moving route is displayed in an AR image in a state where a camera mode of the user device is executed.
Cheng, however, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) Cheng teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Patel for the benefit of allowing a user to easily find a parking space and reducing competition for spaces amongst users. (Cheng: paragraph [0024]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Patel to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Dagley et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20210350449; hereinafter "Dagley").
As per claim 8, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein before the process (c), the moving route is displayed in an AR image on the user device, and the AR image displays identification information of a parking location only in a direction corresponding to the parking location, and when the user device searches for the AR image via 360-degree rotation, the user device reaches the parking area by moving in a direction in which the AR image is continuously displayed.
Dagley, however, teaches that a user may be directed to a parking location via augmented reality on a user device using an indicator 610 superimposed on an image of the user device, wherein the indicator may respond as the device changes its angle in the environment and may continuously point in the proper direction as the user changes angles from which the images captured. (Dagley: paragraphs [0077-80], Fig. 6) Dagley teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo for the benefit of providing an accurate indicator 610 for a mobile device 605 that may be held at multiple angles, and providing a user with an AR experience where they may perceive directions relative to their environments. (Dagley: paragraph [0079]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dagley with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 11637900 B1; hereinafter "Grimm") and further in view of Azuma, et al. (Japanese Patent Document No. JP 2021140410 A; hereinafter "Azuma").
As per claim 9, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the process (a) includes: a process of connecting a controller of the vehicle and the user device based on a local area network;
Grimm, however, teaches that a user device may connect to a vehicle device over a local area network. (Grimm: col. 7 lines 30-39, Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Heo, or by Grimm. Adding the teachings of Grimm, and connecting the vehicle and user device of Koreishi via a LAN does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Grimm with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm does not appear to explicitly teach:
a process of displaying a rear camera image in a center facia of the vehicle when the vehicle performs a head-out parking and transmitting an image including a QR code to the user device when the image including the QR code is detected from the rear camera image of the vehicle;
Azuma, however, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) Azuma teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm for the benefit of making sure the QR code can be easily photographed from the inside of the vehicle in the method of surely inputting the parking lot name and the passenger compartment number in the above-mentioned QR code photographing. (Azuma: paragraph [0005]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Azuma with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm further in view of Azuma further teaches:
and a process of decoding the QR code from the image by the user device, automatically accessing a link associated with the QR code, and transmitting the parking area identification information included in the QR code and the mobile number of the user device to the server.
Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Azuma, as outlined above, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) The motivation to combine Azuma persists. Grimm further teaches that a QR code may contain a URL which may allow the device that decodes it to access a server. (Grimm: col. 8 lines 52-63) The motivation to combine Grimm persists.
As per claim 10, Koreishi in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the process (a) includes: a process of connecting a controller of the vehicle and the user device based on a local area network;
Grimm, however, teaches that a user device may connect to a vehicle device over a local area network. (Grimm: col. 7 lines 30-39, Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Heo, or by Grimm. Adding the teachings of Grimm, and connecting the vehicle and user device of Koreishi via a LAN does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Grimm with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm does not appear to explicitly teach:
a process of displaying a rear camera image in a center facia of the vehicle when the vehicle performs a head-out parking;
Azuma, however, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) Azuma teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm for the benefit of making sure the QR code can be easily photographed from the inside of the vehicle in the method of surely inputting the parking lot name and the passenger compartment number in the above-mentioned QR code photographing. (Azuma: paragraph [0005]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Azuma with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Grimm further in view of Azuma further teaches:
and a process of detecting an image including a QR code from the rear camera image of the vehicle by the user device, decoding the QR code from the image by the user device, and accessing a link associated with the QR code to transmit the parking area identification information included in the QR code and the mobile number of the user device to the server.
Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Azuma, as outlined above, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) The motivation to combine Azuma persists. Grimm further teaches that a QR code may contain a URL which may allow the device that decodes it to access a server. (Grimm: col. 8 lines 52-63) The motivation to combine Grimm persists.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo.
As per claim 11, Koreishi teaches:
A server for providing an AI-based parking service using a QR code, comprising: a memory that stores a program related to a method for providing the AI-based parking service using the QR code;
Koreishi teaches a system and method for automated parking processing using a QR code. (Koreishi: paragraph [0046], abstract) Koreishi further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0037-40], Fig. 1)
Examiner’s Note: Examiner respectfully notes that no patentable weight is given to the recitation of an “AI-based” parking service as the claims are devoid of any mention of AI, do not involve AI, and in no way rely on AI to perform the claims. Therefore, the recitation of AI does not breathe life into the remainder of the claim, and no patentable weight is afforded to this term here.
and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the method includes:
Koreishi further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0037-40], Fig. 1)
Koreishi does not appear to explicitly teach:
(a) if a camera is installed in a parking lot, a process of checking a vacant parking area in the parking lot, identification information of the parking area, and a location of the parking area, providing information about the location of the vacant parking area to a user device by displaying the information on a map, and providing a service capable of providing guidance of a route from a current location of the user device to the vacant parking area;
Cheng, however, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) Cheng teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi for the benefit of allowing a user to easily find a parking space and reducing competition for spaces amongst users. (Cheng: paragraph [0024]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with the teachings of Koreishi to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further teaches:
(b) a process of scanning a QR code installed in a parking area using a user device and transmitting parking area identification information to the server;
Koreishi teaches that a user device may initiate parking by scanning a QR code 41a, 42a, 43a, at a corresponding parking space 41, 42, 43. (Koreishi: paragraph [0046-47], Figs. 2-3) Koreishi teaches that information which identifies the parking space may be gleaned from the code. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-47]) Koreishi further teaches that the parking identification information may thereafter be transmitted to a processing server. (Koreishi: paragraph [0056], Fig. 2, 4)
With respect to the following limitation:
(c) a process of matching and storing an entry time and the parking area identification information to complete entry of a vehicle, identifying location information stored in association with the parking area identification information, and transmitting a vehicle entry completion message to the user device when the user device inputs and transmits a mobile number, a vehicle number, and payment method information to the server;
Koreishi teaches that the server may store an entry time and parking location information include a parking lot and parking space that the user is parked in. (Koreishi: paragraph [0070, 72-74, 154-156], Fig. 7) Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Koreishi further teaches that, once parking begins, a notification of the start of parking may be sent to the user terminal. (Koreishi: paragraph [0088-90]) Koreishi, however, does not appear to teach the input of this information including payment information from the user device.
Heo, however, teaches that a user interface may be used for registering a user with a parking application wherein the user may enter in their information for parking which includes payment details to be automatically charged for the parking transaction. (Heo: paragraphs [0085-86]) Heo teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng for the benefit of significantly improving user convenience. (Heo: paragraph [0051, 104]) Heo further teaches the benefit of providing a system that can further improve the recognition and identification reliability of parked vehicles and a street parking management system including the same . (Heo: paragraph [0008]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Heo with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng to achieve the aforementioned benefits. '
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further teaches:
and (d) a process of performing an exit process of the vehicle connected to the user device and paying a parking fee based on the payment method information when a vehicle exit signal is received from the user device or it is determined that the vehicle has exited based on a signal received from a CCTV installed in the parking area.
Koreishi teaches that a sensor in the user device may detect when the parking has been ended based on the fact that the vehicle has moved from the parking space. (Koreishi: paragraph [0051-54, 56-57]) Heo further teaches that a CCTV camera may be used to detect the entrance and exit of a vehicle into a parking space, wherein when the vehicle exits a parking space, an automatic fee payment may be triggered using the stored payment information. (Heo: paragraphs [0012, 21, 68, 99-100], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
As per claim 20, Koreishi teaches:
A system for providing an AI-based parking service using a QR code, comprising:
Koreishi teaches a system and method for automated parking processing using a QR code. (Koreishi: paragraph [0046], abstract) Koreishi further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0037-40], Fig. 1)
Examiner’s Note: Examiner respectfully notes that no patentable weight is given to the recitation of an “AI-based” parking service as the claims are devoid of any mention of AI, do not involve AI, and in no way rely on AI to perform the claims. Therefore, the recitation of AI does not breathe life into the remainder of the claim, and no patentable weight is afforded to this term here.
Koreishi does not appear to explicitly teach:
a camera installed in a parking lot;
Cheng, however, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) Cheng teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi for the benefit of allowing a user to easily find a parking space and reducing competition for spaces amongst users. (Cheng: paragraph [0024]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with the teachings of Koreishi to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further teaches:
and a server, wherein the system transmits an image of the parking lot captured by the camera to the server, the server checks a vacant parking area in the parking lot, identification information of the parking area, and a location of the parking area from the camera image, provides information about the location of the vacant parking area to the user device by displaying the information on a map, and introduces a service capable of providing guidance of a route from a current location of the user device to the vacant parking area,
Cheng, however, teaches that a camera pointed at each parking space and each entrance and exit of a parking facility may be used to generate a 3D model of the facility, wherein the 3D model incorporates occupied and vacant spaces detected by the cameras, and wherein the 3D model may be sent to a user device and used to present a navigation path in augmented reality on the user device to guide the user to a vacant space which is assigned to the user (identification information of the space). (Cheng: paragraphs [0009-21, 43, 45]) The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
the server checks identification information when receiving an image of a QR code provided in the parking area from the user device,
Koreishi teaches that a user device may initiate parking by scanning a QR code 41a, 42a, 43a, at a corresponding parking space 41, 42, 43. (Koreishi: paragraph [0046-47], Figs. 2-3) Koreishi teaches that information which identifies the parking space may be gleaned from the code. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-47]) Koreishi further teaches that the parking identification information may thereafter be transmitted to a processing server. (Koreishi: paragraph [0056], Fig. 2, 4)
With respect to the following limitation:
when the server receives a mobile number, a vehicle number, and payment method information from the user device, the server matches and stores an entry time and the parking area identification information to complete entry of a vehicle, identifies location information stored in association with the parking area identification information, and transmits a vehicle entry completion message to the user device, and
Koreishi teaches that the server may store an entry time and parking location information include a parking lot and parking space that the user is parked in. (Koreishi: paragraph [0070, 72-74, 154-156], Fig. 7) Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Koreishi further teaches that, once parking begins, a notification of the start of parking may be sent to the user terminal. (Koreishi: paragraph [0088-90]) Koreishi, however, does not appear to teach the input of this information including payment information from the user device.
Heo, however, teaches that a user interface may be used for registering a user with a parking application wherein the user may enter in their information for parking which includes payment details to be automatically charged for the parking transaction. (Heo: paragraphs [0085-86]) Heo teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng for the benefit of significantly improving user convenience. (Heo: paragraph [0051, 104]) Heo further teaches the benefit of providing a system that can further improve the recognition and identification reliability of parked vehicles and a street parking management system including the same . (Heo: paragraph [0008]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Heo with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further teaches:
when the server receives a vehicle exit signal from the user device or it is determined that the vehicle has exited based on a signal received from a CCTV installed in the parking area, the server performs an exit process of the vehicle connected to the user device and pays a parking fee based on the payment method information.
Koreishi teaches that a sensor in the user device may detect when the parking has been ended based on the fact that the vehicle has moved from the parking space. (Koreishi: paragraph [0051-54, 56-57]) Heo further teaches that a CCTV camera may be used to detect the entrance and exit of a vehicle into a parking space, wherein when the vehicle exits a parking space, an automatic fee payment may be triggered using the stored payment information. (Heo: paragraphs [0012, 21, 68, 99-100], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
Claim 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo and further in view of Patel.
As per claim 12, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
(d-1) a process of transmitting an additional identification code of a current location to the server by the user device or receiving previously stored location information or a GPS value from the user device and providing guide information for the user to move to a parking location of the vehicle based on the current location of the user device before the process (d).
Koreishi further teaches that, prior to the scanning of the code, a mobile terminal may use a GPS system to acquire its current location. (Koreishi: paragraph [0050]) Koreishi, however, does not appear to teach the use of such to navigate the user to the parking lot.
Patel, however, teaches that a user searching for a parking spot (at which they will scan a QR code) may send GPS information to a server who returns the available spots back to the user and may display navigation instructions to a selected spot to a mapping application on the user device. (Patel: paragraphs [0031, 50-51], Fig. 3) Patel teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo for the benefit of helping businesses manage their locations and optimize use of the parking locations. (Patel: paragraph [0018]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patel with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 15, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo and further in view of Patel teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the process (d-1) further includes a process of providing a current location, a parking location, and a moving route to the user device by displaying them on a map of the parking lot and displaying the current location of the user device on the moving route by using at least one of a GPS, an accelerometer, and a gyro sensor in the user device.
Koreishi further teaches that, prior to the scanning of the code, a mobile terminal may use a GPS system to acquire its current location. (Koreishi: paragraph [0050]) Patel, as outlined above, teaches that a user searching for a parking spot (at which they will scan a QR code) may send GPS information to a server who returns the available spots back to the user and may display navigation instructions to a selected spot to a mapping application on the user device. (Patel: paragraphs [0031, 50-51], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Patel persists. Heo further teaches the presentation of the user's location and a parking location on a map. (Heo: paragraph [0090-91]) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo and further in view of Lim.
As per claim 13, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
a process of attaching a printout of an additional identification code at each location in a parking lot and transmitting the additional identification code to the server when the user device recognizes the additional identification code before the process (d-1), wherein the additional identification code includes information about a current location in a parking lot.
Koreishi further teaches that a code may be attached to and associated with each parking space, and the user device may scan any of the codes which may send location information to the server device. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-48]) Koreishi further teaches that a code may be attached to and associated with each parking space, and the user device may scan any of the codes which may send location information to the server device. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0046-48])
To be thorough, and to the extent that Koreishi does not explicitly teach that the QR code is printed and attached, Lim teaches this element. Lim teaches that a QR code used in the context of parking vehicles may be printed and attached to a location. (Lim: paragraph [0027]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, or by Lim. Printing out the QR code and attaching it to the location in Koreishi does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo and further in view of Lyman.
As per claim 14, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the process (d) includes: a process of checking identification information of the vehicle when the vehicle leaves a predetermined parking area, detecting the exit time of the vehicle through the camera, calculating a time elapsed from the previously stored entry time, and making automatic payment for an amount corresponding to a parking duration based on the payment method information, and
Koreishi teaches that a sensor in the user device may detect when the parking has been ended based on the fact that the vehicle has moved from the parking space. (Koreishi: paragraph [0051-54, 56-57]) Heo further teaches that a CCTV camera may be used to detect the entrance and exit of a vehicle into a parking space, wherein when the vehicle exits a parking space, an automatic fee payment may be triggered using the stored payment information. (Heo: paragraphs [0012, 21, 68, 99-100], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Heo persists.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo does not appear to explicitly teach:
a process of transmitting, to the user device, a message indicative of a result of the automatic payment when the automatic payment is completed.
Lynam, however, teaches that after a payment has been charged for parking, a confirmation of payment may be sent to a user device. (Lynam: paragraph [0069]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, or by Lynam. Displaying a payment confirmation after charging the fee in the manner taught by Heo does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lynam with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Heo further in view of Dagley.
As per claim 17, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein before the process (c), the moving route is displayed in an AR image on the user device, and the AR image displays identification information of a parking location only in a direction corresponding to the parking location, and when the user device searches for the AR image via 360-degree rotation, the user device reaches the parking area by moving in a direction in which the AR image is continuously displayed.
Dagley, however, teaches that a user may be directed to a parking location via augmented reality on a user device using an indicator 610 superimposed on an image of the user device, wherein the indicator may respond as the device changes its angle in the environment and may continuously point in the proper direction as the user changes angles from which the images captured. (Dagley: paragraphs [0077-80], Fig. 6) Dagley teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo for the benefit of providing an accurate indicator 610 for a mobile device 605 that may be held at multiple angles, and providing a user with an AR experience where they may perceive directions relative to their environments. (Dagley: paragraph [0079]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dagley with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo and further in view of Grimm and further in view of Azuma.
As per claim 18, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the process (b) includes: a process of connecting a controller of the vehicle and the user device based on a local area network;
Grimm, however, teaches that a user device may connect to a vehicle device over a local area network. (Grimm: col. 7 lines 30-39, Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, or by Grimm. Adding the teachings of Grimm, and connecting the vehicle and user device of Koreishi via a LAN does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Grimm with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm does not appear to explicitly teach:
a process of displaying a rear camera image in a center facia of the vehicle when the vehicle performs a head-out parking and transmitting an image including a QR code to the user device when the image including the QR code is detected from the rear camera image of the vehicle;
Azuma, however, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) Azuma teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm for the benefit of making sure the QR code can be easily photographed from the inside of the vehicle in the method of surely inputting the parking lot name and the passenger compartment number in the above-mentioned QR code photographing. (Azuma: paragraph [0005]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Azuma with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm further in view of Azuma further teaches:
and a process of decoding the QR code from the image by the user device, automatically accessing a link associated with the QR code, and transmitting the parking area identification information included in the QR code and the mobile number of the user device to the server.
Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Azuma, as outlined above, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) The motivation to combine Azuma persists. Grimm further teaches that a QR code may contain a URL which may allow the device that decodes it to access a server. (Grimm: col. 8 lines 52-63) The motivation to combine Grimm persists.
As per claim 19, Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the process (b) includes: a process of connecting a controller of the vehicle and the user device based on a local area network;
Grimm, however, teaches that a user device may connect to a vehicle device over a local area network. (Grimm: col. 7 lines 30-39, Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, or by Grimm. Adding the teachings of Grimm, and connecting the vehicle and user device of Koreishi via a LAN does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Grimm with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm does not appear to explicitly teach:
a process of displaying a rear camera image in a center facia of the vehicle when the vehicle performs a head-out parking;
Azuma, however, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) Azuma teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm for the benefit of making sure the QR code can be easily photographed from the inside of the vehicle in the method of surely inputting the parking lot name and the passenger compartment number in the above-mentioned QR code photographing. (Azuma: paragraph [0005]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Azuma with the teachings of Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Koreishi in view of Cheng further in view of Heo further in view of Grimm further in view of Azuma further teaches:
and a process of detecting an image including a QR code from the rear camera image of the vehicle by the user device, decoding the QR code from the image by the user device, and accessing a link associated with the QR code to transmit the parking area identification information included in the QR code and the mobile number of the user device to the server.
Koreishi teaches that the server may receive parking location identification information and user information comprising a mobile number and a vehicle number in order to begin a parking transaction. (Koreishi: paragraphs [0045-47, 56-57]) Azuma, as outlined above, teaches that, when a vehicle backs into a parking space, the rear camera of the vehicle may photograph a QR code associated with the space, may display the QR code in a console of the vehicle, and may transmit the QR code to the mobile device which may decode the QR code and send parking information to a server. (Azuma: paragraphs [0013-18, 28]) The motivation to combine Azuma persists. Grimm further teaches that a QR code may contain a URL which may allow the device that decodes it to access a server. (Grimm: col. 8 lines 52-63) The motivation to combine Grimm persists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628