DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “the detecting that a second location has become available with the first geographic region” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. “with” should be changed to --within--.
Claim 4: “determining a size of a geographic region” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 4: “a geographic region” should be changed to --the first geographic region--.
Claim 10: “the detecting that a second location has become available with the first geographic region” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. “with” should be changed to --within--.
Claim 12: “determining a size of the first geographic region” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 18: “the first geographic boundary” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,443,629. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the presently pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 4 requires:
4. The parking management system of claim 1, wherein determining a size of a geographic region is based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device.
The application as filed does not enable one skilled in the art to determine a size of a geographic region based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device. An analysis of this claimed limitation in accordance with the Wands factors laid out in MPEP 2164.01(a) follows.
The claims require determining a size of a geographic region based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device.
The invention is in the field of parking reservation systems which provide a platform for parking space owners to list parking spaces available for rent, and match those seeking parking spaces to the available parking spaces.
The prior art provides for basic matching of those seeking parking spaces to available parking spaces.
One of ordinary skill in the art is accustomed to programming.
The art is predictable in that such reservation systems will behave as programmed.
The inventor has provided no direction regarding how or why one would determine a size of a geographic region based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device. The specification indicates, at paragraphs [0016] and [0091], using a radius boundary 702 and positional data 602 of listing requests 304 to determine a listing count 616, but does not teach doing the inverse.
The Examiner is not aware of any working examples.
One of ordinary skill in the art would need to perform an unreasonable amount of experimentation to determine why one would determine a size of a geographic region based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device, and how the number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device would affect the size of a geographic region to produce a useful result.
The lack of direction regarding how or why one would determine a size of a geographic region based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device suggests that the application as filed does not enable one skilled in the art to perform the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 requires:
5. The parking management system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
adjust the geographic region based on an increase or decrease of the number of listings within the geographic region.
Claim 5 is not enabled by the application as filed for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claims 12, 13, and 18 substantially mirror claims 4 and 5, and are not enabled by the application as filed for similar reasons as claims 4 and 5 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Konrardy et al. (US Patent No. 10,386,845).
The present application claims priority to provisional application 62/162574 filed 5/15/2015. The examiner could not find support for "reserve, without requiring user input, a first location from the one or more available locations based on the one or more first location search parameters;" in provisional application 62/162574. The effective filing date of the presently presented claims is no earlier than 5/13/2016, corresponding to the filing date of PCT/US16/32529.
Konrardy teaches:
Re claim 1. A parking management system comprising:
a memory (program memory 160, Fig. 1A); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors being configured to (processor 162, Fig. 1A):
receive a parking location request relating to a parking location from a first mobile device, the first parking location request including location search parameters and location data identifying a location of the first mobile device (receive indication requesting a parking space 902, Fig. 9; and column 53, lines 18-38: “At block 902, the server 140 may receive an indication requesting a parking space for the vehicle 108. The indication may include an indication of a specific parking facility or a location near which the vehicle 108 should be parked (e.g., a destination or drop-off location). Additionally, or alternatively, the indication may include requirements for the parking space, such as requirements associated with price, distance from a relevant location, or accessibility. The indication may further indicate an estimate of a duration of time the vehicle 108 is anticipated to be parked before being retrieved. In some embodiments, the request may be automatically generated based upon a location of the vehicle 108, such as a destination geospatial location or a current location determined by a GPS unit 206.”);
determine a first geographic region based on the parking location request (column 53, lines 39-45: “proximity to a location obtained from the GPS unit 206”);
determine a number of parking listings within the first geographic region (column 53, lines 39-63: “total number of parking spaces available for vehicle use in the facility”);
transmit a transaction rate for each of the number of parking listings within the first geographic region (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “the server 140 may identify one or more parking facilities in response to the received indication requesting a parking space, which parking facilities may be ranked or ordered according to desirability of each facility based upon relevant criteria (e.g., location, price, risk of vehicle damage or theft while parked, etc.).” The price must be transmitted to a ranking or ordering module in the processor and/or memory to rank or order the parking facilities according to their price.);
reserve, without requiring user input, a first location from the one or more available locations based on the one or more first location search parameters (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “the server 140 may identify one or more parking facilities in response to the received indication requesting a parking space, which parking facilities may be ranked or ordered according to desirability of each facility based upon relevant criteria (e.g., location, price, risk of vehicle damage or theft while parked, etc.). In such embodiments, the server 140 may attempt to identify and/or reserve an available parking space at a parking facility based upon such ordering.”); and
transmit in response to the reserving, a signal including instructions to the first mobile device to present one or more direction instructions to direct a user of the first mobile device to the first location (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “This may include determining an autonomous or other route from the vehicle's location to the alternative parking facility, as discussed above. In some embodiments, this may include determining the vehicle's current location using a GPS unit 206, determining an autonomous route to the alternative parking facility, and causing the vehicle 108 to autonomously travel to the alternative parking facility.”).
Re claim 2. Wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
responsive to the detecting that a second location has become available with the first geographical region, updating the one or more available locations to include the second location (column 48, lines 4-5: “the target location may be updated during vehicle operation”).
Re claim 3. Wherein the one or more processors are configured to decrypt the parking location request (column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 1: “the front-end components 102 communicate with the back-end components 104 via the network 130. The network 130 may be a proprietary network, a secure public internet, a virtual private network or some other type of network, such as dedicated access lines, plain ordinary telephone lines, satellite links, cellular data networks, combinations of these.”; and column 66, lines 24-25: “(q) software security and anti-hacking measures;”).
Re claim 7. Wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
decrypt the first location search request (column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 1: “the front-end components 102 communicate with the back-end components 104 via the network 130. The network 130 may be a proprietary network, a secure public internet, a virtual private network or some other type of network, such as dedicated access lines, plain ordinary telephone lines, satellite links, cellular data networks, combinations of these.”; and column 66, lines 24-25: “(q) software security and anti-hacking measures;”).
Re claim 9. A method comprising:
receiving parking location request relating to a parking location from a first mobile device (receive indication requesting a parking space 902, Fig. 9; and column 53, lines 18-38: “At block 902, the server 140 may receive an indication requesting a parking space for the vehicle 108. The indication may include an indication of a specific parking facility or a location near which the vehicle 108 should be parked (e.g., a destination or drop-off location). Additionally, or alternatively, the indication may include requirements for the parking space, such as requirements associated with price, distance from a relevant location, or accessibility. The indication may further indicate an estimate of a duration of time the vehicle 108 is anticipated to be parked before being retrieved. In some embodiments, the request may be automatically generated based upon a location of the vehicle 108, such as a destination geospatial location or a current location determined by a GPS unit 206.”);
determining a first geographic region based on the parking location request (column 53, lines 39-45: “proximity to a location obtained from the GPS unit 206”);
determining a number of parking listings within the radius boundary (column 53, lines 39-63: “total number of parking spaces available for vehicle use in the facility”);
transmitting a transaction rate for each of one or more available parking listings (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “the server 140 may identify one or more parking facilities in response to the received indication requesting a parking space, which parking facilities may be ranked or ordered according to desirability of each facility based upon relevant criteria (e.g., location, price, risk of vehicle damage or theft while parked, etc.).” The price must be transmitted to a ranking or ordering module in the processor and/or memory to rank or order the parking facilities according to their price.);
reserving, without requiring user input, a first location from the one or more available locations based on the one or more first location search parameters (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “the server 140 may identify one or more parking facilities in response to the received indication requesting a parking space, which parking facilities may be ranked or ordered according to desirability of each facility based upon relevant criteria (e.g., location, price, risk of vehicle damage or theft while parked, etc.). In such embodiments, the server 140 may attempt to identify and/or reserve an available parking space at a parking facility based upon such ordering.”); and
transmitting in response to the reserving, instructions to the first mobile device to present one or more direction instructions to direct a user of the first mobile device to the first location (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “This may include determining an autonomous or other route from the vehicle's location to the alternative parking facility, as discussed above. In some embodiments, this may include determining the vehicle's current location using a GPS unit 206, determining an autonomous route to the alternative parking facility, and causing the vehicle 108 to autonomously travel to the alternative parking facility.”).
Re claim 10. Wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
responsive to the detecting that a second location has become available with the first geographical region, updating the one or more available locations to include the second location (column 48, lines 4-5: “the target location may be updated during vehicle operation”).
Re claim 11. Wherein the one or more processors are configured to decrypt the parking location request (column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 1: “the front-end components 102 communicate with the back-end components 104 via the network 130. The network 130 may be a proprietary network, a secure public internet, a virtual private network or some other type of network, such as dedicated access lines, plain ordinary telephone lines, satellite links, cellular data networks, combinations of these.”; and column 66, lines 24-25: “(q) software security and anti-hacking measures;”).
Re claim 15. Further comprising:
decrypting the first location search request (column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 1: “the front-end components 102 communicate with the back-end components 104 via the network 130. The network 130 may be a proprietary network, a secure public internet, a virtual private network or some other type of network, such as dedicated access lines, plain ordinary telephone lines, satellite links, cellular data networks, combinations of these.”; and column 66, lines 24-25: “(q) software security and anti-hacking measures;”).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. (US Patent No. 10,386,845) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kotecha et al. (US Publication No. 2015/0066545).
The teachings of Konrardy have been discussed above. Konrardy fails to specifically teach: (re claim 4) wherein determining a size of a geographic region is based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device; (re claim 5) wherein the one or more processors are configured to: adjust the geographic region based on an increase or decrease of the number of listings within the geographic region; (re claim 12) wherein determining a size of the first geographic region is based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device; and (re claim 13) further comprising: adjusting the first geographic region based on an increase or decrease of the number of parking listings within the first geographic region.
Kotecha teaches, at paragraph [0032], a parking management server identifies a limited number of the closest parking spots to a requested location (e.g., the 10 closest parking spots, in order of proximity). This expansion of the searched region until 10 spots are found results in always identifying 10 parking options for a user, which provides multiple options for a user.
In view of Kotecha’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method as taught by Konrardy, (re claim 4) wherein determining a size of a geographic region is based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device; (re claim 5) wherein the one or more processors are configured to: adjust the geographic region based on an increase or decrease of the number of listings within the geographic region; (re claim 12) wherein determining a size of the first geographic region is based on a number of listings proximate to the location of the first mobile device; and (re claim 13) further comprising: adjusting the first geographic region based on an increase or decrease of the number of parking listings within the first geographic region, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kotecha teaches a parking management server identifies a limited number of the closest parking spots to a requested location (e.g., the 10 closest parking spots, in order of proximity). This expansion of the searched region until 10 spots are found results in always identifying 10 parking options for a user, which provides multiple options for a user.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. (US Patent No. 10,386,845) in view of Baughman et al. (US Publication No. 2012/0310712).
Konrardy teaches:
Re claim 17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Fig. 1A):
receive parking location request relating to a parking location from a first mobile device, the first parking location request including location search parameters and location data identifying a location of the first mobile device (receive indication requesting a parking space 902, Fig. 9; and column 53, lines 18-38: “At block 902, the server 140 may receive an indication requesting a parking space for the vehicle 108. The indication may include an indication of a specific parking facility or a location near which the vehicle 108 should be parked (e.g., a destination or drop-off location). Additionally, or alternatively, the indication may include requirements for the parking space, such as requirements associated with price, distance from a relevant location, or accessibility. The indication may further indicate an estimate of a duration of time the vehicle 108 is anticipated to be parked before being retrieved. In some embodiments, the request may be automatically generated based upon a location of the vehicle 108, such as a destination geospatial location or a current location determined by a GPS unit 206.”);
determine a first geographic region based on the parking location request (column 53, lines 39-45: “proximity to a location obtained from the GPS unit 206”);
determine a number of parking listings within the first geographic region (column 53, lines 39-63: “total number of parking spaces available for vehicle use in the facility”);
reserving, without requiring user input, a first location from the one or more available locations based on the one or more first location search parameters (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “the server 140 may identify one or more parking facilities in response to the received indication requesting a parking space, which parking facilities may be ranked or ordered according to desirability of each facility based upon relevant criteria (e.g., location, price, risk of vehicle damage or theft while parked, etc.). In such embodiments, the server 140 may attempt to identify and/or reserve an available parking space at a parking facility based upon such ordering.”); and
transmit in response to the reserving, a signal including […] instructions to the first mobile device to present one or more direction instructions to direct a user of the first mobile device to the first location (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “This may include determining an autonomous or other route from the vehicle's location to the alternative parking facility, as discussed above. In some embodiments, this may include determining the vehicle's current location using a GPS unit 206, determining an autonomous route to the alternative parking facility, and causing the vehicle 108 to autonomously travel to the alternative parking facility.”).
Konrardy fails to specifically teach: (re claim 17) a signal including a price of the reserved first location to the first mobile device.
Baughman teaches, at paragraph [0091], “Each of the determined available parking spaces may have an associated parking price that is also transmitted from the parking manager and displayed on the user computing device.” This allows a user to know the cost associated with a parking transaction.
In view of Baughman’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the medium as taught by Konrardy, (re claim 17) a signal including a price of the reserved first location to the first mobile device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Baughman teaches “Each of the determined available parking spaces may have an associated parking price that is also transmitted from the parking manager and displayed on the user computing device.” This allows a user to know the cost associated with a parking transaction.
Konrardy further teaches:
Re claim 20. Wherein the instructions to the first mobile device direct a self-driving vehicle to the first location (column 54, line 64 through column 55, line 19: “This may include determining an autonomous or other route from the vehicle's location to the alternative parking facility, as discussed above. In some embodiments, this may include determining the vehicle's current location using a GPS unit 206, determining an autonomous route to the alternative parking facility, and causing the vehicle 108 to autonomously travel to the alternative parking facility.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. (US Patent No. 10,386,845) as modified by Baughman et al. (US Publication No. 2012/0310712) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kotecha et al. (US Publication No. 2015/0066545).
The teachings of Konrardy have been discussed above. Konrardy fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18) wherein the processors are further configured to: adjust the first geographic boundary based on an increase or decrease of the number of parking listings within the first geographic location to form a second geographic region.
Kotecha teaches, at paragraph [0032], a parking management server identifies a limited number of the closest parking spots to a requested location (e.g., the 10 closest parking spots, in order of proximity). This expansion of the searched region until 10 spots are found results in always identifying 10 parking options for a user, which provides multiple options for a user.
In view of Kotecha’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the medium as taught by Konrardy, (re claim 18) wherein the processors are further configured to: adjust the first geographic boundary based on an increase or decrease of the number of parking listings within the first geographic location to form a second geographic region, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kotecha teaches a parking management server identifies a limited number of the closest parking spots to a requested location (e.g., the 10 closest parking spots, in order of proximity). This expansion of the searched region until 10 spots are found results in always identifying 10 parking options for a user, which provides multiple options for a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 14, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights