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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 of US Application No. 18/980,654, filed on 13 December 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 21 March 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2024-0039078 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Examiner notes the PRIORITY DOCUMENT EXCHANGE FAILURE STATUS REPORT mailed by the Office on 21 August 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “management unit configured to . . . transmit” and “a database unit configured to store and manage information”, “group designation unit configured to classify”, “priority assignment unit configured to . . . designate . . . and assign” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A claim whose broadest reasonable interpretation covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes transitory signals. In this regard, the claim recites “a computer-readable recording medium”, which may be interpreted to include transitory signals. The specification discloses that the computer-readable recording medium may include a transitory medium such as a data transmission medium (¶ [0064]). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer-readable recording medium” encompasses transitory signals and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-15 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 8, and 15 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes and no. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a process and independent claim 8 is directed toward a machine, both of which fall within one of the statutory categories. Claim 15 does not fall within one of the statutory categories because the broadest reasonable interpretation may include transitory signals. See rejection above.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1, 8, and 5 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, 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 that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “classifying vehicles in a parking lot into a plurality of groups based on information about the parking lot”, “designating, among the plurality of groups, at least one first group where an emergency situation occurs using the information about the parking lot based on that the emergency situation occurs”, and “assigning priorities to the plurality of groups based on information of the at least one first group”. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “transmitting control information to the vehicles using the priorities”. Claim 8 recites the additional elements “a management unit configured to, when an emergency situation occurs, transmit control information to vehicles in a parking lot to move the vehicles; and a database unit configured to store and manage information about the parking lot, wherein the management unit includes: a group designation unit . . . and a priority assignment unit”. Claim 15 recites the additional elements “computer-readable recording medium storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform” and “transmitting control information to the vehicles using the priorities”.
Claim 1
As noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Transmitting control information to the vehicles using the priorities is outputting data. Therefore, this additional element just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The management unit including the group designation unit and priority assignment unit, given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, may be a microprocessor executing software. See Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0062]. A microprocessor executing software is a computer. Using the management unit to classify vehicles, designate groups, and assign priorities is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Transmitting control information using the management unit is data outputting. Therefore, this additional element just adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Also as noted above, no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The database unit configured to store and manage information about the parking lot merely generally links the judicial exception to a computing environment. Therefore, this additional element just adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The computer-readable recording medium executed by a computer, given ITS broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the computer-readable recording medium executed by the computer to classify vehicles, designate groups, and assign priorities is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Transmitting control information using the computer executing the instruction is data outputting. Therefore, this additional element just adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 5 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Transmitting control information to the vehicles, given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, encompasses transmitting the control information from one computing device to another computing device over a communication network, which is transmitting data over a network. As indicated above, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, such as transmitting data over a network, is WURC activity in the field. Therefore, the additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 8, and 15 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 further define a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., classifying vehicles. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract idea may still be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1 and 8, from which the claims depend.
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 recite limitations that may be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1 and 8, from which the claims depend.
Claims 7 and 14 further define a previously-identified additional element, i.e., transmitting control information. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified additional element is still 1) outputting data and 2) transmitting data over a network. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1 and 8, from which the claims depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guan et al. (US 2021/0110683 A1, “Guan”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Guan discloses a system and method for indoor route navigation and teaches:
a management unit (system 101 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]) configured to, when an emergency situation occurs, transmit control information to vehicles in a parking lot to move the vehicles (if an emergency event is determined at 403, navigation guide instructions may be sent to one or more subjects of the infrastructure at 413 – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0062]-[0065]; subjects may be automated guided vehicles – see at least ¶ [0070]; infrastructure may be a parking platform – see at least ¶ [0033]); and
a database unit configured to store and manage information about the parking lot (database 107 of indoor mapping platform 103 for storing indoor map data of infrastructure– see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0037]), wherein the management unit includes:
a group designation unit configured to classify the vehicles in the parking lot into a plurality of groups based on the information about the parking lot (at 421, determination if one or more subjects are present in proximity to the emergency area polygon – see at least Fig. 4B and ¶ [0069]; i.e., 1st group = subjects within proximity of polygon and 2nd group = subjects not within proximity of polygon; at 409, the polygon is generated based on the indoor map data – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0064]); and
a priority assignment unit configured to, when the emergency situation occurs, designate, among the plurality of groups, at least one first group where an emergency situation occurs using the information about the parking lot, and assign priorities to the plurality of groups based on information of the at least one first group (at 425, groups within proximity of the polygon are prioritized to navigate to closest exit, while at 423, groups not in proximity of the polygon are prioritized to one or more second exit routes – see at least Fig. B and ¶ [0069]).
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan in view of Chiba (US 2023/0419834 A1) and Howard (US 2002/0109611 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Guan further teaches:
wherein the information about the parking lot includes [ ] information about whether the emergency situation occurs in the parking lot (at 403, an emergency event may be determined – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0062], information about a parking area (database may store floor plans of each floor – see at least ¶ [0038]), information about a type of the parking lot (database may store comprise a floor plan of each floor – see at least ¶ [0038]; i.e., storing information for multiple floors indicates the type of parking lot being multi-story.
Guan fails to teach wherein the information about the parking lot includes information about identification numbers of the vehicles in the parking lot, information about locations of available parking spaces, information about a number of vehicles available for parking, and information about a location of each vehicle in the parking lot.
However, Chiba discloses an automated valet parking management system and teaches:
wherein the information about the parking lot includes information about identification numbers of the vehicles in the parking lot (vehicle management information 170 includes vehicle ID – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0074]), information about locations of available parking spaces (parking lot usage information 160 indicates usage status/availability of parking spaces 5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0073], [0083]; parking lot map information 150 indicates the arrangement of parking spaces 5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0073]), information about a number of vehicles available for parking, and information about a location of each vehicle in the parking lot (vehicle management information 170 includes position information – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for indoor route navigation of Guan to provide information about the parking lot, as taught by Chiba, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for managing automated parking in the parking lot (Chiba at ¶ [0002]).
Also, Howard discloses parking management systems and teaches:
wherein the information about the parking lot includes information about a number of vehicles available for parking (scanning area database 1128 may include percentage and number of spaces occupied – see at least ¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for indoor route navigation of Guan to provide information about the parking lot, as taught by Howard, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would assist in the reservation of parking spaces (Howard at ¶ [0036]).
Claims 3, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan in view of Koyama et al. (US 2023/0211804 A1, “Koyama”).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Guan fails to teach but Koyama discloses a vehicle control method and teaches:
wherein classifying the vehicles in the parking lot into the plurality of groups comprises: classifying the vehicles in the parking lot into the plurality of groups based on autonomous driving levels of the vehicles (vehicles may be identified as manned or unmanned, where manned vehicles are prioritized for evacuation at S3 and unmanned vehicles are prioritized to move to a temporary refuge place at S7 – see at least Figs. 3, 4 and ¶ [0035]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for indoor route navigation of Guan to provide for classifying vehicles based on autonomous driving levels, as taught by Koyama, with a reasonable expectation of success because classifying based on autonomous driving level would allow manned vehicles to not be hindered by unmanned vehicles during evacuation (Koyama at ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Guan fails to teach but Koyama discloses a vehicle control method and teaches:
wherein assigning the priorities to the plurality of groups comprises: assigning the priorities to the plurality of groups based on at least one of a distance between the at least one first group and other groups or whether the vehicles are occupied by drivers (vehicles may be identified as manned or unmanned, where manned vehicles are prioritized for evacuation at S3 and unmanned vehicles are prioritized to move to a temporary refuge place at S7 – see at least Figs. 3, 4 and ¶ [0035]-[0043].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for indoor route navigation of Guan to provide for assigning priorities based on occupancy by drivers, as taught by Koyama, with a reasonable expectation of success because classifying based on occupancy by drivers would allow manned vehicles to not be hindered by unmanned vehicles during evacuation (Koyama at ¶ [0043]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan in view of Buerkle et al. (US 2025/0216859 A1, “Buerkle”).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Guan fails to teach but Buerkle discloses emergency management using a robot fleet and teaches:
wherein designating, among the plurality of groups, the at least one first group comprises: reclassifying one or more vehicles in at least one the first group other than a vehicle with a problem to another group (mobile units damaged by the fire cannot be relocated and remain in their positions – see at least ¶ [0048]; i.e., groups may be determined based on damaged and undamaged status; alternatively, vehicles may be grouped based on having or not having flammable material – see at least ¶ [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for indoor route navigation of Guan to provide for reclassifying vehicles, as taught by Buerkle, with a reasonable expectation of success because reclassifying the vehicles may optimize mobile unit selection so as to reduce damage during emergencies (Buerkle at ¶ [0037]).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan in view of Parrini et al. (US 2004/0163325 A1, “Parrini”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Guan fails to teach but Parrini discloses a method and system for emergency evacuation of building occupants and teaches:
wherein assigning the priorities to the plurality of groups comprises: assigning floor priorities to each floor based on a floor in the parking lot to which the at least one first group belongs (evacuation priority may be given to floors of the building between two determined floors – see at least Fig. 2c and ¶ [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for indoor route navigation of Guan to provide for assigning floor priorities, as taught by Parrini, with a reasonable expectation of success because prioritizing floors may provide more efficient and pondered evacuation (Parrini at ¶ [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and 2) amended to overcome the rejection under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666