CTNF 19/095,346 CTNF 96431 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims This first nonfinal action is in response to applicant's filing on March 31, 2025 . Claims 1-7 are pending and have been considered as follows. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 , 32 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 1.321(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.323(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.323(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 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-2, 6, 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12291195 to Okamura et al et al. (reference patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the reference patent recite or render obvious all of the limitations recited in in the present claims, with only slight but obvious differences in wording (e.g., when applicant’s present claim terminology is read in light of applicant’s arguments and the specification amendments in the present application), and with the limitations in the present claims corresponding to limitations in the reference patent claims as shown in the following claim correspondence table: Patented Claims in U.S. Patent 12291195 to Okamura et al. (reference patent) Present Claims in U.S. Patent Application 19095346 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 6 5 8 6 9 7 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Seki (US 20190243368 A) in view of Grover( US 2016116293 A1) Regarding claim 1, Seki teaches automated valet parking system that automatically moves an autonomous driving vehicle to a pick-up space of a parking place by issuing an instruction to the autonomous driving vehicle parked in a parking area of the parking place according to a pick-up request from a user frontend of a user (abstract, Fig. 2, Fig. 6, [0017],[0021], [0138] present example is applied to an automated valet parking system), the system comprising a processor configured to: acquire position information of the user frontend; determine whether the user frontend is located within a near-pick-up area including a preset pick-up area including the pick-up space ([0078]-[0087] The predicted user arrival time t1 is calculated on the basis of the distance from the user position to the pick-up area Ab and the moving speed of the user; if the user is near the pickup location (the timing is such that the user will arrive around the same time or before the AV), then the AV is instructed to move to the pickup location); determine, in response to receiving the pick-up request from the user, whether the user frontend is located within the near-pick-up area ( Figs. 6-9 and corresponding paragraphs ); in a second case where the user frontend is not located within the near-pick-up area, notify the user frontend of a second notification of movement of the autonomous driving vehicle, the second notification being different from the first notification (Figs. 6-9 and corresponding paragraphs, The vehicle waits to move until the user is within a time frame (in other words “near”) the pickup location; S115 in Fig. 6, [104]-[0107] Upon receiving the notification and the request, the mobile terminal 3 (controller 31) displays information indicating that the pick-up by the vehicle has been cancelled in the display device of the output unit 35 and displays an input screen for inputting the schedule information . If the schedule information is input to the input screen, the mobile terminal 3 transmits the schedule information to the controller 11, S116 I Fig.7, rescheduling ); instruct the autonomous driving vehicle to move to the pick-up space when, in response to receiving the pick-up request from the user, the processor determines that the user frontend is located within the vicinity of the preset pick-up area ( Figs. 6-9 and corresponding paragraphs, if the user is near the pickup location (the timing is such that the user will arrive around the same time or before the AV), then the AV is instructed to move to the pickup location at least S113 in Fig. , 8, S125 in Fig. 7 ). While Seki teaches in a first case where the user frontend is located within the near-pick-up area, notify vehicle to move to the pickup location (Figs. 6-9 and corresponding paragraphs, if the user is near the pickup location (the timing is such that the user will arrive around the same time or before the AV), then the AV is instructed to move to the pickup location at least S113 in Fig. , 8, S125 in Fig. 7), Seki does not explicitly teach but Grover teaches in a first case where the user frontend is located within the near-pick-up area , notify the user frontend of a first notification of movement of the autonomous driving vehicle ([0040]the VCS may also output a notification or message to the remote user that the vehicle is proceeding to pick up the user; Thus, the user may utilize the nomadic device to remotely monitor the vehicle's route and location. Additionally, the vehicle may send coordinate updates continuously to allow the user to monitor the entire route). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle parked in a parking lot to move to a pick-up area in accordance with a call from a user who is a passenger, as taught by Seki, notifying the user frontend of a first notification of movement of the autonomous driving vehicle, as taught by Grover, as Seki and Grover are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using notifying the user frontend of a first notification of movement of the autonomous driving vehicle and predictably applied it to Seki to provide actively the vehicle location data in real-time. Regarding claim 2, Seki teaches the second notification includes a pick-up reservation reception ( Seki, S115 in Fig. 6, [104]-[0107] Upon receiving the notification and the request, the mobile terminal 3 (controller 31) displays information indicating that the pick-up by the vehicle has been cancelled in the display device of the output unit 35 and displays an input screen for inputting the schedule information. If the schedule information is input to the input screen, the mobile terminal 3 transmits the schedule information to the controller 11, S116 I Fig.7, rescheduling ), and the processor is further configured to, in the second case, instruct the autonomous driving vehicle to move to the pick-up space (Seki, step 125 in Fig. 7, instruct vehicle to move again to pick-up area). Seki does not explicitly teach but Grover teaches the first notification includes a pick-up start of the autonomous driving vehicle ( [0040]the VCS may also output a notification or message to the remote user that the vehicle is proceeding to pick up the user; Thus, the user may utilize the nomadic device to remotely monitor the vehicle's route and location. Additionally, the vehicle may send coordinate updates continuously to allow the user to monitor the entire route). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle parked in a parking lot to move to a pick-up area in accordance with a call from a user who is a passenger, as taught by Seki, notifying the user frontend of a first notification of movement of the autonomous driving vehicle, as taught by Grover, as Seki and Grover are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using notifying the user frontend of a first notification of movement of the autonomous driving vehicle and predictably applied it to Seki to provide actively the vehicle location data in real-time. Regarding claim 5, Saki teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: in the first case, automatically receive the pick-up request ([0107], S125); in the second case, perform a pick-up reservation reception which receives a pick-up reservation instead of the pick-up request ( S115 in Fig. 6, [104]-[0107] Upon receiving the notification and the request, the mobile terminal 3 (controller 31) displays information indicating that the pick-up by the vehicle has been cancelled in the display device of the output unit 35 and displays an input screen for inputting the schedule information. If the schedule information is input to the input screen, the mobile terminal 3 transmits the schedule information to the controller 11, S116 I Fig.7, rescheduling ). Regarding claim 6, Seki teaches wherein the vicinity of the preset-pick-up area includes at least a part of a moving path for the user to go to the pick-up space (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs [0025]- [0026]). Regarding claim 7, Seki teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the user frontend is located within the vicinity of the pick-up area after a lapse of a predetermined time when, in response to the pick-up request from the user, the processor determines that the user frontend is not located within the vicinity of the preset pick-up area (Seki, Figs 6-7 and corresponding paragraphs [0074]-[0120], for example, a lapse of a predetermined time, TH1+α, TH2+α, and TH3+α, [0118] in step S123, the controller 11 determines whether the user arrival time t3 upon rescheduling is no greater than “predicted vehicle arrival time T1+margin α” (whether “t3≤T1+α” holds). If “t3≤T1+α” does not hold, in step S124, the controller 11 decrements the value of the user arrival time t3 and again executes the determination processing in step S123). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Seki (US 20190243368) in view of Grover( US2016116293A1) in view of Kunihiro (JPH0510046A) and further in view of Youtube (ThyssenKrupp HIGHdraulic Elevators at Bauerle Parking Garage, UTSA in San Antonio, TX, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVllJaUfBV4; Filmed on Oct. 30, 2015) Regarding claim 4, Seki as modified by Grover does not explicitly teach but Kunihiro teaches wherein the near-pick-up area includes ( Fig. 2, [0006] English Translation of Kunihiro, the multi-story car park is a connecting road 5 between the upper part of Hall 3 and the ground ) at least a part of a parking place-side elevator hall located on the same floor as the pick-up space of the parking place ([0005] English Translation, a multi-story parking lot having parking floors hierarchically, a plurality of annular floors are concentrically arranged around a central floor to form floors of each floor, A part of the central floor or the circular floor is configured to be rotatable, a hall is formed facing the outermost circular floor of each floor, and an elevator floor for automobile transportation is arranged in this hall so that it can be raised and lowered ), and at least a part of another floor elevator hall where an elevator of the parking place-side elevator hall stops on a different floor from the parking place-side elevator hall ( [0006]-[0008] English Translation, one or two lifting floors 4 are arranged so as to be able to move up and down. When two lifting floors 4 are provided, a loading section 6 provided between the communication path 5 and the upper portion of the hall 3; providing an elevator floor that vertically transports the vehicle on the outside of the torus floor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Kunihiro which teaches that a parking structure/lot can include an elevator and the hall surrounding such elevator with the automatic valet system of Seki, as the system of Seki is directed to the automatic calling of a parked vehicle to meet a user at a predetermined place within a parking structure/lot based on the current position of the user in relation to the pick-up location and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a parking lot/parking structure can include multiple levels and an elevator and understood that a person may be located in or around the elevator when calling for the vehicle based on the teachings of Kunihiro and would have predictably applied the teachings of Kunihiro to improve the system of Seki. Seki as modified by Grover as modified by Kunihiro does not explicitly teach but Youthube teaches the specification of wherein the vicinity of the preset-pick-up area includes at least a part of the elevator (Fig. 1, [0012] vicinity of preset-pick-up area channel 3 including at least a part of the elevator 7 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Youtube which teaches that a parking structure/lot can include an elevator lifting people with the automatic valet system of Seki as modified by Grover as modified by Kunihiro, as the system of Seki as modified by Grover as modified by Kunihiro is directed to the automatic calling of a parked vehicle to meet a user at a predetermined place within a parking structure/lot based on the current position of the user in relation to the pick-up location and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a parking lot/parking structure can include multiple levels and an elevator lifting human and understood that a person may be located in or around the elevator (lifting people) when calling for the vehicle based on the teachings of Youtube and would have predictably applied the teachings of Youtube to improve the efficiency or convenience of system of Seki as modified by Grover as modified by Kunihiro. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 3 is 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. Prior Art Please refer to form 892 for cited references. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)). Conclusion 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100. /JINGLI WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 11 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 12 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/095,346 Page 13 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights