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 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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukaiyama (US 2020/0388155 A1) in view of Makke et al. (US 2022/0092978 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mukaiyama discloses an automated valet parking management system for managing automated valet parking in a parking lot (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & Abstract & [0027-0028]), the automated valet parking management system comprising: one or more processors (e.g. Fig. 1: 34 & [0041]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to
determine, when a vehicle that is compatible with the automated valet parking arrives at the parking lot (e.g. Fig. 3: S1 & [0069]), whether a usage reservation for the automated valet parking is made by the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 3: S2 & [0069]),
search for vacancy information for reservation of a parking slot in the parking lot when no usage reservation is made (e.g. Fig. 3: S3: vehicle arrives earlier than reservation means no reservation is made at the arrival time) and
when the parking slot is vacant with respect to reservation (e.g. Fig. 3: S5), proactively (broadly interpreted as action not caused by reservation, e.g. early arrival causes parking system search for alternative options and notify user proactively) notify a user of the vehicle regarding a usage proposal of the automated valet parking, via a terminal device operated by the user (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0036]: server 20 transmits information on result of determination of whether parking reservation is possible to user terminal 10).
Makke teaches search for vacancy information when no usage reservation is made at all and when the processor detects that the vehicle has arrived at the parking lot (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0034]).
Although obvious searching for parking when user arrived early (even though reservation is made at a later time) is equivalently the same as searching for a parking for user as if no reservation has made at all, Makke is further cited to teach searching vacant parking for reserved user and/or user without reservation are known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Mukaiyama with the teachings of Makke to provide valet parking notification to user arrived at a predetermined valet parking position (with or without reservation) so as to improve parking experience for user of a garage.
Regarding claim 2, Mukaiyama discloses the usage proposal includes information indicating a vacancy in reservation for the parking slot, and information regarding confirmation of whether the user intends to use the automated valet parking (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0036]: server transmits information on result of determination of whether parking reservation is possible).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukaiyama (US 2020/0388155 A1) in view of Makke et al. (US 2022/0092978 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2016/0012726 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mukaiyama fails to disclose, but Wang teaches when a reply rejecting (e.g. [0114, 0132]: user 2 rejects a parking space offer) the usage proposal is received from the user via the terminal device, the one or more processors do not notify the user of the usage proposal, even when the vehicle, in which the user that rejected the usage proposal is riding, arrives at the same parking lot with no usage reservation for the automated valet parking again (e.g. [0114]: stop sending notification if user reject or does not respond to the notification).
Both Mukaiyama and Wang are related to parking assist, and Wang suggests user can accept or reject a suggested parking space.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mukaiyama with the teachings of Wang to allow user to accept or deny a parking space offer since the offer might not be fully satisfied by the user and it would provide freedom to user to accept or deny offer.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches when a request indicating that notification of the usage proposal is unnecessary is received from the user via the terminal device in advance, the one or more processors do not notify the user of the usage proposal when the vehicle, in which the user is riding, arrives at the parking lot with no usage reservation for the automated valet parking, with respect to all parking lots that provide an automated valet parking service by the automated valet parking management system (e.g. [0105]: turn on or off alerts in the settings).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights