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 .
Contents of this rejection:
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under Alice
Second 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claim 7 specifically directed to signals per se
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections
Allowable subject matter
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-7 are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The limitations of the independent claims of storing, in association with position information on a specific parking section, a parking method selected by a first user when the first user executes one of parking the vehicle in the specific parking section or causing the vehicle to exit from the specific parking section through the automatic parking control; determining, when a second user executes one of parking the vehicle in a predetermined parking section or causing the vehicle to exit from the predetermined parking section through the automatic parking control, based on current position information on the vehicle and the stored position information on the specific parking section, whether the predetermined parking section is the specific parking section; and executing proposal processing of proposing, when the predetermined parking section is determined to be the specific parking section, to the second user, the parking method stored in association with the position information on the specific parking section covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the application of the steps by a generic processing device (for claim 7), no computer hardware at all (for claim 6), or generic modules that are subject to a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below, nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally. The claim limitations do not require a user to actually navigate the vehicle, or the vehicle to autonomously navigate.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the element of a processing device to perform the listed steps. The processing device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing device to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Turning to the dependent claims, claims 2-4 are simply mental steps, however claim 5 has a control device that actually executes the automatic parking control, and parks the vehicle. Claim 5, if integrated into the independent claims, would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Second 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection
MPEP 2106.03 states that transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave. Because claim 7 does not recite that the program is non-transitory, it includes signals per se and is rejected as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations that recite “modules” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are part of a system claim and written in means plus function format. It is unclear based on the Specification whether these are hardware, software, or both. Specifically, module is generally known to be software, however the claim is a system, so it is unclear whether to interpret these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and issue 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, or to address them under software per se. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
This rejection applies to claim 1 and all its dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record does not teach a specific determination that based on a second user using the vehicle, that a first user has previously undertaken the same step of one of parking the vehicle in a predetermined parking section or causing the vehicle to exit from the predetermined parking section, and making a recommendation based on this. There is no user-selected parking strategy for a specific location and then recommending that strategy to a separate user when the vehicle recognizes the same parking location.
The two closest pieces of prior art are:
Hayes which is directed to systems and apparatuses for receiving data from a plurality of sensors and using the data, as well as other data, to generate a parking recommendation for an autonomous vehicle and instruct the autonomous vehicle to travel to the recommended parking location are provided. Data may be received from a plurality of sensors within a first autonomous vehicle, as well as from other vehicles and/or structures. Historical parking data associated with the first autonomous vehicle may also be extracted. In some examples, an expected future trip of the first autonomous vehicle may be determined. The system may then evaluate the data to generate a parking recommendation for the first autonomous vehicle. The system may generate and transmit instructions for traveling from a current location to the recommended parking location and may cause the first autonomous vehicle to travel to the recommended parking location. Here there is a recommendation based on parking history, but that is to choose the parking spot. There is no recognition of a parking spot as being historical, and then making a recommendation to a second user.
Lai which is directed towards systems, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to auto-parking a vehicle in accordance with user preferences. In one embodiment, a disclosed system identifies an available parking space and one or more attributes of the available parking space based, at least in part, on information from one or more sensors. The system classifies the available parking space as a target parking space based, at least in part, on the one or more attributes satisfying a preference threshold defined according to one or more user-defined criteria that indicate characteristics of the target parking space. The system generates parking instructions configured to cause the subject vehicle to park in the target parking space. This reference does disclose user preferences, but it does not disclose historical recognition.
As such, the present claims overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights