DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-5, 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 2 is anticipated by claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 3 is anticipated by claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 4 is anticipated by claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 5 is anticipated by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 19 is anticipated by claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 20 is anticipated by claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029.
Claim 1 of App. No. 19/089,862
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,029
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon to reduce carbon emissions associated with a vehicle in a parking garage, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to:
obtain a unique identifier associated with a vehicle;
obtain a unique identifier associated with the vehicle;
obtain a unique identifier associated with a driver of the vehicle, wherein the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle is based on a number associated with a mobile device of the driver of the vehicle and a driver's license associated with the driver of the vehicle;
obtain a unique identifier associated with a driver of the vehicle, wherein the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle is based on a number associated with a mobile device operating on a wireless telecommunication network and a driver's license associated with the driver of the vehicle;
generate a one-time password associated with the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle;
generate a one-time password associated with the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle;
send the one-time password to the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle;
send the one-time password to the mobile device associated with the driver of the vehicle;
authenticate the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle by receiving the one-time password from the number associated with the mobile device;
authenticate the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle by receiving the one-time password from the number associated with the mobile device;
create in a database an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle, and the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle;
create in a database an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle, and the mobile device associated with the driver of the vehicle;
facilitate parking of the vehicle in a parking garage;
facilitate parking of the vehicle in the parking garage;
detect that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage;
detect that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage;
upon detecting that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage, identify, using the database, the vehicle associated with the mobile device based on the unique identifier associated with the vehicle being associated with the mobile device in the database; and
upon detecting that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage, identify, using the database, the vehicle associated with the mobile device based on the unique identifier associated with the vehicle being associated with the mobile device in the database;
upon identifying the vehicle associated with the mobile device, send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle
upon identifying the vehicle associated with the mobile device, send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle;
upon the vehicle reentering the parking garage associated with the database, enable an identification of the vehicle using a different mobile device number associated with the driver by: upon obtaining the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, determining whether the database contains the unique identifier associated with the vehicle; upon determining that the database includes the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, retrieving from the database the mobile device associated with the unique identifier associated with the vehicle; sending a request for a verification to the mobile device; monitoring a passage of time since sending the request for the verification to the mobile device; after a predetermined amount of time without receiving the verification from the mobile device, requesting that the driver of the vehicle enter a different number associated with the driver; obtain an available spot in the parking garage; and facilitate parking of the vehicle in the available spot
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the use of abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms in the claims and the abstract, without the inclusion of the terms they stand for, may lead to different interpretations. In regards to claims 12-18, Examiner is interpreting “UE” as “user equipment” as described in ¶22 of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplett (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20160133133), in view of Rogich (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120111937), in further view of Seki (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190243368).
In regards to claim 1, Triplett teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system (Triplett: ¶60-63, ¶89-90, ¶94 disclose vehicle parking technology comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium), cause the system to:
obtain a unique identifier associated with a vehicle (Triplett: ¶101, ¶108 disclose obtaining vehicle information).
Although Triplett discloses obtaining driver information (Triplett: ¶101, ¶108), the reference does not explicitly state that the user information is based on a number associated with a mobile device and a driver’s license associated with the driver of the vehicle.
However, Rogich teaches:
obtain a unique identifier associated with a driver of the vehicle, wherein the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle is based on a number associated with a mobile device of the driver of the vehicle and a driver's license associated with the driver of the vehicle (Rogich: ¶20-21 disclose obtaining driver information, including a driver’s mobile number, driver’s license number, etc.);
generate a one-time password associated with the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle (Rogich: ¶20-23 discloses generating a unique number associated with the vehicle and the driver);
send the one-time password to the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle (Rogich: ¶20-23 disclose sending the unique number to the mobile device of the driver);
authenticate the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle by receiving the one-time password from the number associated with the mobile device (Rogich: ¶20-23 disclose authenticating the driver by receiving the unique number);
create in a database an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle, and the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle (Rogich: ¶20-23 disclose generating a database association for the vehicle, the driver, and the driver’s mobile device);
facilitate parking of the vehicle in a parking garage (Rogich: ¶20-23 disclose facilitating parking of the vehicle in the parking area).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the driver information and driver authentication, as taught by Rogich, into the system and method of Triplett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create a more "green" valet system” and “increase customer convenience by providing a new and simple way to offer valet services… compatible with the increased functionality of today's new messaging tools such as mobile devices and/or smart phones” (Rogich: ¶24).
Triplett goes on to teach:
detect that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose detecting the proximity of a driver’s mobile device);
upon detecting that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage, identify, using the database, the vehicle associated with the mobile device based on the unique identifier associated with the vehicle being associated with the mobile device in the database (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose identifying the vehicle associated with the driver’s mobile device).
Although Triplett discloses facilitating delivery of the vehicle to the driver (Triplett: ¶126-129, ¶155), the reference does not explicitly teach autonomous delivery of the vehicle.
However, Triplett and Seki together teach upon identifying the vehicle associated with the mobile device (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose identifying the vehicle associated with the driver’s mobile device), send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle (Seki: ¶27, ¶39-47, ¶95-103, ¶141 disclose causing the autonomous delivery of the vehicle to the driver).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle delivery, as taught by Seki, into the system and method of Triplett and Rogich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve “a pick-up system with high functionality of reducing the waiting time of the user” (Seki: ¶147).
In regards to claim 4, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Triplett, Rogich, and Seki together further teach detect that the mobile device is within a first radius of the parking garage (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose detecting that the driver’s mobile device is within a proximity); upon detecting that the mobile device is within the first radius of the parking garage, send a message to the mobile device asking for a confirmation to deliver the vehicle; determine whether the confirmation to deliver the vehicle is received (Rogich: ¶20-23 disclose receiving confirmation to deliver the vehicle and delivering the vehicle); upon determining that the confirmation to deliver the vehicle is received, send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle (Seki: ¶27, ¶39-47, ¶95-103, ¶141 disclose causing the autonomous delivery of the vehicle to the driver); upon determining that the confirmation to deliver the vehicle is not received, detect that the mobile device is within a second radius of the parking garage, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius; and upon detecting that the mobile device is within the second radius of the parking garage, send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle without receiving the confirmation (Seki: ¶27, ¶39-47, ¶95-103, ¶141 disclose detecting that the user mobile device is closer to the parking area and, in response, delivering the vehicle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the delivery confirmation, as taught by Rogich, into the system and method of Triplett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create a more "green" valet system” and “increase customer convenience by providing a new and simple way to offer valet services… compatible with the increased functionality of today's new messaging tools such as mobile devices and/or smart phones” (Rogich: ¶24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle delivery, as taught by Seki, into the system and method of Triplett and Rogich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve “a pick-up system with high functionality of reducing the waiting time of the user” (Seki: ¶147).
In regards to claim 5, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Triplett further teaches upon obtaining the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, determine whether the database contains the unique identifier associated with the vehicle; upon determining that the database includes the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, retrieve from the database the mobile device associated with the unique identifier associated with the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose determining an association between a vehicle and a mobile device); send a request for a verification to the mobile device; and upon receiving the verification from the mobile device, facilitate parking of the vehicle in the parking garage (Triplett: ¶110-120 disclose requesting a confirmation from the mobile device and, upon receiving confirmation, cause the vehicle to be parked in the parking area).
In regards to claim 8, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Triplett further teaches wherein: the database includes an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and a previously stored unique identifier associated with a different driver of the vehicle from the driver of the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose wherein the database may store a plurality of associations for a vehicle, with different drivers and different mobile devices of the drivers).
In regards to claim 9, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Triplett further teaches wherein: the database includes an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and a previously stored unique identifier associated with a different driver of the vehicle from the driver of the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose wherein the database may store a plurality of associations for a vehicle, with different drivers and different mobile devices of the drivers); and the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium further includes instructions to create, in the database, the association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle, and the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle by overwriting the association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and the previously stored unique identifier associated with the different driver of the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose creating a plurality of associations for a vehicle, with different drivers and different mobile devices of the drivers).
In regards to claim 10, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Triplett further teaches wherein: the database includes an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and a different mobile device different from the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose wherein the database may store a plurality of associations for a vehicle, with different drivers and different mobile devices of the drivers).
In regards to claim 11, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Triplett further teaches wherein: the database includes an association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and a different mobile device different from the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose wherein the database may store a plurality of associations for a vehicle, with different drivers and different mobile devices of the drivers); and the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium further includes instructions to create, in the database, the association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle, the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle, and the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle by overwriting the association between the unique identifier associated with the vehicle and the different mobile device different from the mobile device of the driver of the vehicle (Triplett: ¶71, ¶101, ¶107-108, ¶158 disclose creating a plurality of associations for a vehicle, with different drivers and different mobile devices of the drivers).
In regards to claim 12, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 12.
In regards to claim 13, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 4 applies to the rejection of claim 13.
In regards to claim 14, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 17, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 9 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 9.
In regards to claim 18, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 11 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 11.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Triplett teaches A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon… (Triplett: ¶60-63, ¶89-90, ¶94 disclose vehicle parking technology comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium). Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the system of claim 19. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 4 applies to the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplett (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20160133133), in view of Rogich (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120111937), in further view of Seki (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190243368) and Gao (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190096241).
In regards to claim 2, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Although Triplett teaches obtaining license plate information and other vehicle information (Triplett: ¶158), the reference does not explicitly state obtaining a vehicle identification number and combining the information.
However, Gao teaches obtain a license plate associated with the vehicle and a vehicle identification number; and combine the license plate and the vehicle identification number to obtain the unique identifier associated with the vehicle (Gao: ¶94, ¶138-140 disclose obtaining and combining license plate information and vehicle identification number).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle information combination, as taught by Gao, into the system and method of Triplett, Rogich, and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve an accuracy of the identification information of the target vehicle” (Gao: ¶140).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplett (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20160133133), in view of Rogich (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120111937), in further view of Seki (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190243368) and Brown (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190303929).
In regards to claim 3, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Although Triplett teaches obtaining driver information (Triplett: ¶101, ¶108), the reference does not explicitly state obtaining driver’s license information and a mobile number and combining the information.
However, Brown teaches obtain the driver's license associated with the driver of the vehicle; obtain a mobile number associated with the mobile device operating on a wireless telecommunication network; and combine the driver's license and the mobile number to obtain the unique identifier associated with the driver of the vehicle (Brown: ¶68, ¶130 disclose obtaining and combining driver’s license information and a mobile number).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user information combination, as taught by Brown, into the system and method of Triplett, Rogich, and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “confirm the actual identity of a person” (Brown: ¶46).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplett (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20160133133), in view of Rogich (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120111937), in further view of Seki (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190243368) and Lee (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190171209).
In regards to claim 6, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Although the references disclose delivery of the vehicle in response to detecting the proximate mobile device, the references do not explicitly state delivering the vehicle after a time period has passed.
However, Triplett, Rogich, Seki, and Lee together teach in response to facilitating parking of the vehicle in the parking garage, start a timer (Lee: ¶318, ¶323-327, ¶367-368 disclose waiting a period of time, e.g., 5 minutes, after parking the vehicle, before signaling to the vehicle to move to the boarding location); and send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle (Seki: ¶27, ¶39-47, ¶95-103, ¶141 disclose causing the autonomous delivery of the vehicle to the driver) after: the timer has expired (Lee: ¶318, ¶323-327, ¶367-368 disclose waiting a period of time, e.g., 5 minutes, after parking the vehicle, before signaling to the vehicle to move to the boarding location), detecting that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose detecting the proximity of a driver’s mobile device), and identifying the vehicle associated with the mobile device (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose identifying the vehicle associated with the driver’s mobile device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the waiting period, as taught by Lee, into the system and method of Triplett, Rogich, and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve user convenience when performing an autonomous driving operation, an autonomous parking operation, and an autonomous parking-out operation” (Lee: 517).
In regards to claim 7, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. Although the references disclose delivery of the vehicle in response to detecting the proximate mobile device, the references do not explicitly state delivering the vehicle after a time period has passed.
However, Triplett, Rogich, Seki, and Lee together teach in response to facilitating parking of the vehicle in the parking garage, start a timer of at least five minutes (Lee: ¶318, ¶323-327, ¶367-368 disclose waiting a period of time, e.g., 5 minutes, after parking the vehicle, before signaling to the vehicle to move to the boarding location); and send signaling to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be autonomously delivered to the driver of the vehicle (Seki: ¶27, ¶39-47, ¶95-103, ¶141 disclose causing the autonomous delivery of the vehicle to the driver) after: the timer has expired (Lee: ¶318, ¶323-327, ¶367-368 disclose waiting a period of time, e.g., 5 minutes, after parking the vehicle, before signaling to the vehicle to move to the boarding location), detecting that the mobile device is proximate to the parking garage (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose detecting the proximity of a driver’s mobile device), and identifying the vehicle associated with the mobile device (Triplett: ¶43-45, ¶60, ¶79-81, ¶96-103, ¶109, ¶135 disclose identifying the vehicle associated with the driver’s mobile device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the waiting period, as taught by Lee, into the system and method of Triplett, Rogich, and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve user convenience when performing an autonomous driving operation, an autonomous parking operation, and an autonomous parking-out operation” (Lee: 517).
In regards to claim 15, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 6 applies to the rejection of claim 15.
In regards to claim 16, Triplett, Rogich, and Seki teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 7 applies to the rejection of claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628