DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 1-13 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-13 were amended. Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-13 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f):
Claims 1 and 7 are amended to recite a sensor, a processor, and a memory, while deleting the elements previously interpreted to invoke § 112(f) interpretation. Therefore, the examiner agrees that the amended claims do not appear to invoke § 112(f), and the previous claim interpretation under § 112(f) no longer applies.
Claim Objections:
Claims 3-4 and 10 are canceled and the previous objections no longer apply. Claim 7 is amended to recite “the vehicle type of the target vehicle…” and corrects the previous issue. The objection to claim 7 is also withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 1-13 (pgs. 8-10, remarks filed 1/19/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong One: Applicant argues that by reciting operations for controlling equipment in the parking lot, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (pg. 8, remarks). However, the examiner reminds applicant that the test at Step 2A Prong One is whether or not the claims recite an abstract idea. While the examiner agrees that the limitation for “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels” (using claim 1 as representative) is an additional element to be considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the claim still recites several limitations that fall under “mental processes” (“identify the target vehicle,” “generate an identification,” “monitor a location,” “generate location information and driving status information,” “decide a target parking space...,” etc.) and “mathematical calculations” (e.g. “calculate an optimized route…” and “calculate a carbon emission…”). Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong Two: Applicant further argues that:
“The applicant respectfully submits that the system in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application that at least improves the field of the parking lot management, where the optimized route to a target lot is determined based. Specifically, the claim recites "decide a target parking space according to the vehicle type of the target vehicle and the location information" and "provide route guidance information according to the optimized route by controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot". This limitation makes clear that the route guidance information is transformed into operation of equipment of a parking lot. Thus, the system is not merely a generic computer used to apply an abstract idea, but rather a particular machine integrated with a practical application (i.e. parking lot management system), satisfying the requirement of Step 2A, Prong Two.” (pg. 9, remarks)
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation discussed above for controlling equipment in the parking lot, as currently recited, includes “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels” – controlling a display to display information or displaying an indicator light reads on generic computer implementation that does not provide a technological improvement or otherwise add meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the examiner notes that if the limitation recited “provide route guidance information according to the optimized route by controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including [[at least one of]] indicators lights, gates, and display panels” or was simply amended to only include controlling gates (e.g. “provide route guidance information according to the optimized route by controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including controlling gates in the parking lot”), then the examiner would likely agree that the claims recite meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Applicant further argues that:
“As further described in the specification, the claimed invention provides a significant technological improvement. Specifically, the claimed invention provides the sensing unit, the identification module, the monitoring unit, the route optimization calculation module and carbon emission calculation module. These additional elements together achieve providing a particular technical solution to problems such as non- optimized parking routes leading to increased low-speed driving and higher greenhouse gas emissions, and difficulties in monitoring vehicle emissions in traditional parking lots, which constitutes an unconventional and non-generic architecture that is neither well- understood nor routine in the field. Consequently, these improvements constitute "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea, thereby satisfying Step 2B.” (pg. 9, remarks)
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged problem of “non-optimized parking routes leading to increased low-speed driving and higher greenhouse gas emissions, and difficulties in monitoring vehicle emissions in traditional parking lots” is a non-technical commercial or business problem addressed by the performance of the abstract idea using generic computer components (i.e. a processor, a sensor, and controlling the display of information on display panels or an indicator light). Therefore, at best, the claims recite an improved abstract idea, but do not provide a technological improvement (e.g. a technical solution a technological problem). As discussed above, the limitation for controlling equipment in the parking lot is described in the claims and the specification as including “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels” – which includes generic computer implementation to display guidance information on a generic display or control a generic electronic device such as an indicator light. However, as suggested above the examiner notes that if the limitation recited “provide route guidance information according to the optimized route by controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including [[at least one of]] indicators lights, gates, and display panels” or was simply amended to only include controlling gates (e.g. “provide route guidance information according to the optimized route by controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including controlling gates in the parking lot”), then the examiner would likely agree that the claims recite meaningful limitations that add significantly more.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are canceled. Please see the updated § 101 rejection over claims 1, 5-8, and 12-13 below.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-13 (pgs. 10-12, remarks filed 1/19/2026) have been considered, but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the current § 103 rejections of remaining claims 1, 5-8, and 12-13 below in response to applicant’s amendments.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are canceled. Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 1, 5-8, and 12-13 below.
Priority
As previously acknowledged, this application claims foreign priority to Taiwan application serial no. 113114689, filed on April 19, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recite “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels” but should recite “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicator lights, gates, or display panels”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 5-7 recite “A carbon emission management system, comprising: a sensor…and a processor…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 8 and 12-13 recite “A management method of a carbon emission management system…” (i.e. a process). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite limitations for carbon emissions management (additional elements omitted), including:
sensing a target vehicle…
identify the target vehicle…and generate an identification result…
the identification result comprises at least one of a carbon emission coefficient and a vehicle type of the target vehicle, and the vehicle type comprises one of a fuel vehicle, a hybrid power vehicle, or an electric vehicle;
monitor a location and a driving status of the target vehicle and generate location information and driving status information of the target vehicle, wherein the driving status information comprises at least one of a driving route, a driving speed, and a driving time of the target vehicle;
decide a target parking space according to the vehicle type of the target vehicle and the location information,
calculate an optimized route for the target vehicle to drive to the target parking space,
and provide route guidance information according to the optimized route…the route guidance information being used to guide the target vehicle to the target parking space…wherein the target parking space is a charging pile parking space, a battery swap station parking space or a general parking space;
calculate a carbon emission of the target vehicle according to the identification result and the driving status information, and
provide carbon emission reduction information according to the carbon emission and a preset carbon emission, wherein the carbon emission of the target vehicle is used as reference information for calculating the optimized route
The limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. detecting and monitoring a vehicle and a driving status, determining a target parking space based on the type of vehicle, calculating and providing an optimal route to the target parking space, and calculating a carbon emission to provide a carbon reduction according to the carbon emission and the driving status) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1 and 8 above cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the steps (referring to limitations above) of sensing and to identify the target vehicle, and monitor a location and driving status of the target vehicle amount to observations, while the steps to generate an identification result, location information, and driving status information, decide a target parking space, calculate an optimized route, provide route guidance information, calculate a carbon emission, and provide a carbon emission reduction information would be considered evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1 and 8 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations,” and “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping.” As claims 1 and 8 recite “calculate an optimized route…” and “calculate a carbon emission…,” the claims recite limitations for performing calculations and thus recite limitations that also fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
As claims 1 and 8 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “mental processes” and “mathematical calculations”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 8 recite the following additional elements:
“a carbon emission management system” of claims 1 and 8
“a sensor, sensing a target vehicle and generating a sensing signal, and “generating a sensing signal” of claims 1 and 8
“a processor, coupled to the sensor, configured to…” of claim 1
“by controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels” of claims 1 and 8
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1 and 8 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. detecting and monitoring a vehicle and a driving status, determining a target parking space based on the type of vehicle, calculating and providing an optimal route to the target parking space, and calculating a carbon emission to provide carbon reduction according to the carbon emission and the driving status) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “a carbon emission management system,” “a sensor, sensing a target vehicle and generating a sensing signal,” and “a processor, coupled to the sensor, configured to…” of claim 1; and “a carbon emission management system” and “generating a sensing signal” (interpreted as being performed by some generic sensor/computing device) of claim 8). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The “sensor” being used to sense a vehicle and generate a sensing signal describes the use of a generic sensing device (e.g. sensor, camera) in its ordinary capacity, and merely applies the abstract idea on generic computer components. Furthermore, “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a generic instruction to display information on a display panel, or control an indicator light, which reads on generic computer implementation that does not provide a technological improvement or otherwise add meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
Furthermore, while the limitations “the vehicle type comprises one of a fuel vehicle, a hybrid power vehicle, or an electric vehicle” and “the target parking space is a charging pile parking space, a battery swap station parking space or a general parking space” are considered part of the abstract idea above, to any extent that any of these limitations are construed as additional elements, they merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (i.e. specific vehicle types or types of parking spots), and do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. detecting and monitoring a vehicle and a driving status, determining a target parking space based on the type of vehicle, calculating and providing an optimal route to the target parking space, and calculating a carbon emission to provide a carbon reduction according to the carbon emission and the driving status) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “a carbon emission management system,” “a sensor, sensing a target vehicle and generating a sensing signal,” and “a processor, coupled to the sensor, configured to…” of claim 1; and “a carbon emission management system” and “generating a sensing signal” (interpreted as being performed by some generic sensor/computing device) of claim 8).
The “sensor” being used to sense a vehicle and generate a sensing signal describes the use of a generic sensing device (e.g. sensor, camera) in its ordinary capacity, and as indicated above merely applies the abstract idea on generic computer components. Furthermore, “controlling an operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a generic instruction to display information on a display panel, or control an indicator light, which reads on generic computer implementation that does not provide a technological improvement or otherwise add meaningful limitations that add significantly more. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, while the limitations “the vehicle type comprises one of a fuel vehicle, a hybrid power vehicle, or an electric vehicle” and “the target parking space is a charging pile parking space, a battery swap station parking space or a general parking space” are considered part of the abstract idea above, to any extent that any of these limitations are construed as additional elements, they merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (i.e. specific vehicle types or types of parking spots), and do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above or otherwise add significantly more.
Dependent Claims 5-7 and 12-13:
Dependent claims 5-7 and 12-13 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 8 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-6 and 12-13 recite the following limitations which further describe the abstract idea above, to calculate the optimized route according to an exit or an entrance of a parking lot (claims 5 and 12), and calculate the optimized route according to at least one of the vehicle type of the target vehicle, a shortest driving distance, and a shortest driving time (claims 6 and 13).
Dependent claim 7 recites further describes the abstract idea (“storing map information of a parking lot, the vehicle type of the target vehicle, carbon emission coefficient, carbon emission information, and the driving status information”) being applied using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “a memory”).
Therefore, claims 1, 5-8, and 12-13 are ineligible under § 101.
Note: See the suggestion provided in the response to arguments above which would likely overcome the § 101 rejection.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210114480 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of US 20240212359 A1 to Nayak et al. (Nayak), and further in view of US 20230054393 A1 to Kaita et al. (Kaita).
Claim 1: Lee teaches:
A [[…]] management system (Lee: ¶ 0030, Fig. 1 showing parking guidance system), comprising:
a sensor, sensing a target vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0031 “The first license plate number recognizing device 100 serves to recognize a license plate number of a vehicle entering or exiting from a parking lot…the first license plate number recognizing device 100 may be, for example, a camera, an image sensor, etc. A technology of recognizing the license plate number of the vehicle through the camera is a known technology”) and generating a sensing signal (Lee: ¶ 0031-0032 showing licence plate number recognizing device, e.g. a camera, detects a licence plate number on a vehicle and provides information to server to classify the vehicle);
and a processor, coupled to the sensor (Lee: Fig. 1, ¶ 0031-0032 showing server 200 coupled with the first license plate number recognizing device 100; ¶ 0033 “The server 200 may be a computer system including one or more processors”), configured to:
identify the target vehicle according to the sensing signal and generate an identification result (Lee: ¶ 0032, ¶ 0037 showing the server compares the recognized license plate number of the vehicle to data stored in a database in order to identify and classify the vehicle),
wherein the sensing signal comprises an image signal of the target vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0031 “the first license plate number recognizing device 100 may be, for example, a camera, an image sensor, etc. A technology of recognizing the license plate number of the vehicle through the camera is a known technology”),
the identification result comprises at least one of a carbon emission coefficient and a vehicle type of the target vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0032 “The server 200 may classify a priority of the vehicle based on the license plate number recognized by the first license plate number recognizing device 100, and distinguish whether the vehicle is a parking use vehicle or a charging use vehicle”),
and the vehicle type comprises one of a fuel vehicle, a hybrid power vehicle, or an electric vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0031-0032 showing the vehicle may be identified as a charging use vehicle, i.e. an electric vehicle; see ¶ 0046, ¶ 0002 explicitly stating “electric vehicle”);
monitor a location (Lee: ¶ 0031, ¶ 0051 showing detection of vehicle entering the parking lot, and wherein ¶ 0038 “the path guiding device 240 may assign the vehicle classified as the first priority to a parking spot or a charging spot closest to an elevator, assign the vehicle classified as the second priority to a parking spot or a charging spot more distant from the elevator as compared with the vehicle classified as the first priority, and assign the vehicle classified as the third priority to a parking spot or a charging spot more distant from the elevator as compared with the vehicle classified as the second priority”; and further monitoring in ¶ 0039 “the path guiding device 240 may perform communication with the parking lot and the vehicle to confirm a position of the vehicle”) and a driving status of the target vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0039 “the path guiding device 240 may perform communication with the parking lot and the vehicle to confirm a position of the vehicle and indicate a direction on a movement path through which the vehicle is to move to the assigned spot. For example, referring to FIG. 3, when the vehicle passes through points a, b, and c until the vehicle arrives at the assigned spot, the path guiding device 240 may provide a guidance on a path moving direction of the vehicle at the point b with an arrow or the like when the vehicle passes through the point a and provide a guidance on a path moving direction of the vehicle at the point c with an arrow or the like when the vehicle passes through the point b, thereby providing a guidance on the path until the vehicle arrives at the assigned spot”) and generate location information (Lee: see ¶ 0031, 0051, ¶ 0039 as per above detecting vehicle at entry, and monitoring/confirming vehicle position thereafter) and driving status information of the target vehicle (Lee: see ¶ 0039 as per above for confirming vehicle position and path),
wherein the driving status information comprises at least one of a driving route, a driving speed, and a driving time of the target vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0039 showing monitoring and providing guidance to the vehicle as it passes through various points, i.e. at least a driving route; also see Fig. 3);
decide a target parking space according to the vehicle type of the target vehicle and the location information (Lee: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0031-0032 showing assigning parking spot based on the classification of the vehicle, e.g. as a parking use vehicle or a charging use vehicle and upon detection of the vehicle entering the parking lot; also see ¶ 0038 “the path guiding device 240 may assign the vehicle classified as the first priority to a parking spot or a charging spot closest to an elevator, assign the vehicle classified as the second priority to a parking spot or a charging spot more distant from the elevator as compared with the vehicle classified as the first priority, and assign the vehicle classified as the third priority to a parking spot or a charging spot more distant from the elevator as compared with the vehicle classified as the second priority,” i.e. based on vehicle location as compared with the spots),
With respect to the limitation:
calculate an optimized route for the target vehicle to drive to the target parking space,
Lee teaches determining a path/route for the target vehicle to drive to the target parking space from its current location (Lee: ¶ 0009, ¶ 0038-0040, and Fig. 3), but does not explicitly state calculating an optimized route. However, Nayak teaches calculating/determining an optimal route for a vehicle to drive from a starting point to a destination location (Nayak: ¶ 0088 showing calculating possible routes to “determine an optimum route to travel along a road network from an origin location to a destination location” and ¶ 0053-0055 showing calculating a route and recommending route having lowest total emissions; see ¶ 0017, ¶ 0020 specifying emissions include carbon emissions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the calculation of an optimal route of Nayak in the parking guidance system of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide the route which is not necessarily the shortest or quickest but is the best route when emissions are also taken into account” (Nayak: ¶ 0055).
Lee, as modified above (see Nayak teaching determining and providing an optimal route from a starting point to a given destination point), further teaches:
and provide route guidance information according to the optimized route by controlling operation of equipment of a parking lot including at least one of indicators lights, gates, or display panels (Lee: ¶ 0040 showing “the path guiding device 240 may transfer path guiding information of the vehicle to a plurality of displays 300 installed in the parking lot to allow a path guidance to be displayed on the displays 300”; also see ¶ 0045),
the route guidance information being used to guide the target vehicle to the target parking space (Lee: ¶ 0038-0040, ¶ 0045, Fig. 3 showing path guiding the vehicle to the assigned parking spot),
wherein the target parking space is a charging pile parking space, a battery swap station parking space or a general parking space (Lee: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0031-0032 as above showing determining whether to assign regular parking spot of a parking spot with an electric vehicle charger; see ¶ 0046 showing charging spot with a charging device); and
With respect to the following limitations, while Nayak teaches optimizing a route to minimize carbon emissions as per above, Lee/Nayak do not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Kaita teaches:
calculate a carbon emission of the target vehicle according to the identification result and the driving status information (Kaita: ¶ 0040, ¶ 0048 calculating a carbon emission of a vehicle according to vehicle information, such as the model of the vehicle, and ¶ 0062-0064 based on monitored sensor information while driving vehicle along a selected route for reducing carbon emissions; ¶ 0033, ¶ 0037 showing processor 32 of cloud server), and provide carbon emission reduction information according to the carbon emission and a preset carbon emission (Kaita: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0040-0044, ¶ 0048 showing standard CO2 emissions amount; ¶ 0062-0064 showing monitoring while the vehicle travels the route to calculate actual CO2 emissions; ¶ 0065-0074 showing calculating and outputting the determined CO2 reduction amount based upon the actual CO2 emissions amount in comparison to the standard CO2 emissions),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included functions for monitoring actual carbon emissions against a standard carbon emissions to determine a CO2 reduction amount for granting of incentives of Kaita in the parking guidance and routing of Lee/Nayak with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “encourage the user to actively execute CO2 reduction traveling by granting a reward point as an incentive to CO2 reduction to the user who travels with a low CO2 emission amount (CO2 reduction traveling)” (Kaita: ¶ 0035).
With respect to the remaining limitation, Lee does not explicitly teach, however, Nayak teaches:
A carbon emission management system… (Nayak: ¶ 0049, ¶ 0053-0055, ¶ 0088 showing estimating carbon emissions and determining routes to minimize carbon emissions, i.e. managing carbon emissions; see ¶ 0017, ¶ 0020 specifying emissions include carbon emissions)
wherein the carbon emission of the target vehicle is used as reference information for calculating the optimized route (Nayak: ¶ 0053-0055, ¶ 0087-0088 showing emissions of the vehicle are considered to calculate and determine the optimal route)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a carbon emissions in the calculation/determination of an optimal route to minimize carbon emissions of Nayak in the parking guidance system of Lee/Nayak/Kaita with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the limitations above.
Claim 8: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations. Lee further teaches A management method (Lee: ¶ 0015 parking guidance method).
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210114480 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of US 20240212359 A1 to Nayak et al. (Nayak), further in view of US 20230054393 A1 to Kaita et al. (Kaita), and further in view of US 20240416954 A1 to Ogawa et al. (Ogawa).
Claim 5: Lee/Nayak/Kaita teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, to the extent that Lee/Nayak/Kaita do not explicitly teach optimizing a route according to an exit or entrance of the parking lot, Ogawa teaches:
wherein the processor calculates the optimized route according to an exit or an entrance of a parking lot (Ogawa: ¶ 0074-0076, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0105, ¶ 0123-0124 showing determining a route from a parking lot entrance to a parking spot with the smallest total value (cost), where the cost corresponds to the time or distance required in the route)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the calculation of an optimal route from an entrance to a parking spot that minimizes a cost such as a time or distance of the route of Ogawa in the parking guidance system of Lee/Nayak/Kaita with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “A route that is searched using such a network only indicates a course to a parking space (which parking space is used for parking by passing through which passage) and it has been unable to present what locations are taken for traveling on what path in actual vehicle's travel up to the point where the vehicle is parked in the parking space” (Ogawa: ¶ 0007) and “by using the specific travel path, it becomes possible to provide more appropriate driving assistance compared to conventional cases” (Ogawa: ¶ 0014).
Claim 6: Lee/Nayak/Kaita teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, to the extent that Lee/Nayak/Kaita do not explicitly teach optimizing a route according to the vehicle type/shortest driving distance/shortest driving time, Ogawa teaches:
wherein the processor calculates the optimized route according to at least one of the vehicle type of the target vehicle, a shortest driving distance, and a shortest driving time (Ogawa: ¶ 0074-0076, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0105, ¶ 0123-0124 showing determining a route from a parking lot entrance to a parking spot with the smallest total value (cost), where the cost corresponds to the time or distance required in the route)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the calculation of an optimal route to a parking spot that minimizes a cost such as a time or distance of the route of Ogawa in the parking guidance system of Lee/Nayak/Kaita with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “A route that is searched using such a network only indicates a course to a parking space (which parking space is used for parking by passing through which passage) and it has been unable to present what locations are taken for traveling on what path in actual vehicle's travel up to the point where the vehicle is parked in the parking space” (Ogawa: ¶ 0007) and “by using the specific travel path, it becomes possible to provide more appropriate driving assistance compared to conventional cases” (Ogawa: ¶ 0014).
Claim 12: See the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 13: See the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210114480 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of US 20240212359 A1 to Nayak et al. (Nayak), further in view of US 20230054393 A1 to Kaita et al. (Kaita), and further in view of US 20170124874 A1 to Cai et al. (Cai).
Claim 7: Lee/Nayak/Kaita teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
a memory, storing…the vehicle type of the target vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0034-0037 showing database device storing vehicle license plate information and indicating the vehicle classification/type),
With respect to the following limitation, Lee does not explicitly teach, however, Nayak teaches:
storing…carbon emission coefficient (Nayak: ¶ 0039 showing emission tables storing vehicle emission coefficients; ¶ 0017, ¶ 0020 showing the emissions include carbon emissions), carbon emission information (Nayak: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0049 showing stored vehicle emissions data 231),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include storing carbon emissions and carbon emissions coefficient data associated with vehicles as taught by Nayak in the parking guidance system of Lee/Nayak/Kaita, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the remaining limitation, Lee/Nayak/Kaita do not explicitly teach, however, Cai teaches:
storing…map information of a parking lot (Cai: ¶ 0016 “Parking database 126 includes information regarding a layout and conditions of the area associated with a parking garage and/or parking lot. For example, parking database 126 includes: speed limits, distances to structures and features of the parking facility, location of driving lanes, total number of parking spaces with location and type (e.g., handicapped, permit, reserved, all access, vehicle size type, etc.), number of levels, stairs, elevators, exits, entrances, etc.”; also see ¶ 0017 “Navigation parking route 128 includes driving directions, visual aids (e.g., maps), and time estimates from the location associated with a vehicle and an available parking space”) […] and the driving status information (Cai: ¶ 0028 showing time of entry recorded; and ¶ 0013-0015, ¶ 0040-0045 showing updating route using real-time driving status data from camera that is stored on the server, and updating historical data when entry into parking space is detected)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include storing a layout/map of a parking lot or garage and driving status data as taught by Cai in the parking guidance system of Lee/Nayak/Kaita, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628