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 . Claims 1-13 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 1-13 were cancelled and claims 14-25 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 14-25 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16, 20, and 23-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 3 recites “a motor vehicle” but should instead recite --[[a]] the motor vehicle--.
Claim 14, line 7 recites “an AVP process” but should instead recite --[[an]] the AVP process--.
Claim 14, line 10 recites “an AVP process” but should instead recite --[[an]] the AVP process--.
Claim 15, line 4 recites “an AVP process” but should instead recite --[[an]] the AVP process--.
Claim 15, line 6 recites “the data” but should instead recite --[[the]] still missing data--.
Claim 16, lines 7-8 recites “an AVP process” but should instead recite --[[an]] the AVP process--.
Claim 16, line 8 recites “a specific service” but should instead recite --[[a]] the specific service--.
Claim 20, lines 4-5 recites “a specific service” but should instead recite --[[a]] the specific service.
Claim 20, line 7 recites “the are forwarded” but should instead recite --the still missing data are forwarded--.
Claim 23, line 4-5 recites “refueling with gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, combustible gas” but should instead recite --refueling with gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, or combustible gas--.
Claim 24, lines 2 and 3 recites “configured to” but should instead recite --configured [[to]] for--.
Claim 24, line 3 recites “a motor vehicle” but should instead recite --[[a]] the motor vehicle--.
Claim 24, lines 8 and 11 recites “an AVP process” but should instead recite --based on the request to carry out [[an]] the AVP process--.
Claim 25, line 5 recites “a motor vehicle” but should instead recite --[[a]] the motor vehicle--.
Claim 25, lines 9 and 12 recites “an AVP process” but should instead recite --based on the request to carry out [[an]] the AVP process--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “service management platform” in claims 14-24, “AVP service system” in claims 14-25, “further service system(s)” in claims 16-23.
Examiner note: Claim 22 recites that the service management platform, AVP service system, and service system(s) are implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine. Although a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine are recognized as having structure, since the claim recites “implemented in”, these limitations do not necessarily impart sufficient structure. Claim 25 recites “executed by a computer of a service management platform” which imparts sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “service management platform” in claims 14-24, “AVP service system” in claims 14-25, “further service system(s)” in claims 16-23 all use a generic placeholder “platform” or “system” coupled with functional language
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic
placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Service management platform: page 11, lines 14-19 – “a stand-alone server”
AVP service system: page 11, lines 14-19 – “a stand-alone server”
Further service system(s): page 11, lines 14-19 – “a stand-alone server”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20, lines 2-3, 5, and 8 recites “the respective further service system”, “respective further service”, and “the respective service system” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 20 depends from claim 16, however it is claims 18 and 19 that refer to the limitation “respective further service system”, “respective further service”, and “respective service system”. Claims 18 and 19 refer a plurality of further service systems. This makes it unclear if claim 20 now requires a plurality of further service systems. Therefore it is unclear if claim 21 should i) depend on claim 18, ii) depend on claim 19, or iii) instead recite --the
Claim 21, line 1 recites “the needed data” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 depends from claim 16, however it is claim 15 and Claim 20 that refer to the limitation “data needed”. Therefore it is unclear if claim 21 should i) depend on claim 15, ii) depend on claim 20, or iii) instead recite – [[the]] data needed-- to establish proper antecedent basis according to the current dependency on claim 16. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to be referring to --[[the]] data needed-- so as to establish proper antecedent basis according to the current dependency on claim 16.
Claim 22, line 2 recites “the service system or the service systems” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 depends from claim 16, however it is claims 18 and 19 that refer to “a plurality of respective further systems” and “the service systems”. This makes it unclear if claim 22 now requires a plurality of further service systems. Therefore it is unclear if claim 22 should i) depend on claim 18, ii) depend on claim 19, or iii) instead recite --the service system
Claim 22 recites “wherein (i) the service management platform, (ii) the AVP service system, and (iii) the service system or the service systems, are respectively implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation due to the wording of the claim. The claim includes a first list (platform/systems) which are respectively implemented in a second list (cloud infrastructures/server/machine). Additionally, the phrase “and/or” is used multiple times in the claim, making it difficult to ascertain the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the service management platform can be implemented in one or more cloud infrastructures, server, or machine; the AVP service system can be implemented in one or more cloud infrastructures, server, or machine; and the service system(s) can be implemented in one or more cloud infrastructures, server, or machine.
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 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method, a system, or a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium”, which are each one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified method claim 14 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 14 recites the limitations of:
“A method for managing at least one service for a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps: receiving a request to carry out an AVP process for a motor vehicle to be parked within a parking lot by a service management platform; inquiring of an AVP service system by the service management platform whether the AVP service system can carry out the AVP process for the motor vehicle based on the request to carry out an AVP process within the parking lot; receiving a response from the AVP service system by the service management platform to the inquiry from the service management platform; and responding to the request to carry out an AVP process by the service management platform based on the response from the AVP service system.”
The limitations of i) receiving a request to carry out an AVP process for a motor vehicle to be parked within a parking lot, ii) inquiring of an AVP service system whether the AVP service system can carry out the AVP process for the motor vehicle based on the request to carry out an AVP process within the parking lot; iii) receiving a response from the AVP service system to the inquiry; and iv) responding to the request to carry out an AVP process based on the response from the AVP service system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the service management platform” for each of the steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by the service management platform” language, receiving a request to carry out an AVP process for a motor vehicle to be parked within a parking lot encompasses a first person (such as a valet person) being asked (for example by a driver) if a motor vehicle can be parked. Inquiring of an AVP service system whether the AVP service system can carry out the AVP process for the motor vehicle based on the request to carry out an AVP process within the parking lot encompasses the first person (such as the valet person) asking another second person (another valet person) if there is space to park in the parking lot. Receiving a response from the AVP service system to the inquiry encompasses the first person (such as the valet person) receiving a verbal response from the second person (other valet person) such as yes there is space to park. Responding to the request to carry out an AVP process based on the response from the AVP service system encompasses any response that the first person (such as the valet person) can provide in response. Other than these steps being performed by a service management platform, these steps can encompass a simple conversation which is a mental process, because the conversation requires listening, making observations/judgements, and responding. 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. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a service management platform and an AVP service system. The service management platform and the AVP service system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component/processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “a motor vehicle”. The abstract idea is merely linked to a particular technological field (motor vehicle). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “service management platform interpreted as a server” to perform the recited 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a motor vehicle amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more details. Thus claim 14 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 24-25 recite similar limitations to claim 14, and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Claim 15-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 15 recites the limitation of “wherein, upon a positive response from the AVP service system, data needed to carry out the AVP process are forwarded to the AVP service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out an AVP process, wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the AVP process are still missing, the still missing data are requested and, after receipt of the still missing data, the data are forwarded to the AVP service system”. This limitation includes an additional element in the form sending/receiving data. Sending/receiving data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. This limitation also includes an additional mental process of requesting missing data, which encompasses a person asking for more data.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “wherein at least one further request to carry out a specific service for the motor vehicle is received while the motor vehicle is within the parking lot, inquires of a further service system for carrying out the specific service whether the further service system can carry out the specific service based on the respective request while the motor vehicle is within the parking lot, wherein, upon a positive response, a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated based on the request to carry out an AVP process and based on the at least one further request to carry out a specific service in order to enable both the carrying out of the AVP process by the AVP service system and the carrying out of the specific service by the further service system”. This limitation includes an additional mental process of receiving a request for a service, inquiring for the service based on the request, and when it is determined that the response is positive, coordinating the stay of the motor vehicle. This encompasses the first person being asked if they can have their car washed while their vehicle is parked for the next 2 hours, the first person then asking the second person if the car can be washed within the next 2 hours, the second person responding to the first person with a yes or no, the first person identifying/judging that the response was yes, and deciding that the vehicle will be washed while it is parked.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “wherein the coordinating includes communicating a time of day and/or date to the AVP service system at which or on which the motor vehicle must be at a predetermined location in the parking lot at which the specific service is to be carried out by the further service system, so that the AVP service system can guide the motor vehicle in an at least highly automated manner to the predetermined location on time”. This limitation includes an additional mental process of the first person telling the second person that the vehicle needs to be at a washing station at 2:00 pm. The limitation of “so that the AVP service system can guide the motor vehicle in an at least highly automated manner to the predetermined location on time” is intended use.
Claim 18 recites the limitation of “wherein a plurality of further requests to carry out a respective specific service for the motor vehicle are received, wherein a plurality of respective further service systems for carrying out the respective specific service are inquired of whether the respective further service system can carry out the specific service based on the corresponding request, wherein, upon at least two positive responses, the coordinating includes determining, based on at least one service parameter, a sequence according to which the services for the motor vehicle are to be carried out by the respective further service system”. This limitation includes an additional mental process of receiving requests for services, inquiring for the services based on the request, and when it is determined that two or more of the responses are positive, determining/selecting the sequence of services based on a parameter, such as corresponding locations of the services. This encompasses the first person being asked if they can have their car washed and their tire pressure checked while their vehicle is parked for the next 2 hours, the first person then asking the second person if the car can be washed and the tires checked within the next 2 hours, the second person responding to the first person with a yes or no for each request, the first person identifying/judging that the responses were yes, and deciding that the vehicle will be washed first and then the tires will be checked while it is parked because the wash station is closer than the tire check station.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of “wherein the at least one service parameter is in each case an element selected from the following group of service parameters: utilization of the service systems; utilization of the AVP service system; capacity of the service systems; capacity of the AVP service system; current and/or future traffic within the parking lot; parking position of the motor vehicle within the parking lot; predetermined locations; expected duration of carrying out one of the services”. This limitation is defining what the service parameters are for making the judgement in claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation of “wherein, upon a positive response from the respective further service system, data needed to carry out the respective further service are forwarded to the respective service system when such data are already included in the respective at least one further request to carry out a specific service, wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the respective further service are still missing, the still missing data are requested and after receipt of the still missing data, the are forwarded to the respective service system”. These limitations are examined similar to those in claim 15 above.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of “wherein the needed data include one or more elements of the following data: (i) motor vehicle length; (ii) motor vehicle width; (iii) motor vehicle height; (iv) certificate and/or password and/or access key for accessing a motor vehicle component including a drive system and/or brake system and/or steering system and/or clutch system and/or lighting system and/or door lock and/or tank lock and/or charging opening lock and/or charging component and/or trunk lock and/or engine compartment lock and/or control unit and/or main control unit, which is needed to carry out the service or the AVP process; (v) motor vehicle turning radius; (vi) driving characteristics of the motor vehicle; (vii) level of automation”. This limitation is defining the needed data.
Claim 22 recites the limitation of “wherein (i) the service management platform, (ii) the AVP service system, and (iii) the service system or the service systems, are respectively implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine”. This limitation is further clarifying that the service management platform, AVP service system, and service system are no more than software or generic computer components. These are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic cloud infrastructure, generic stand-alone service, generic virtual machine).
Claim 23 recites the limitation of “wherein the service is an element selected from the following group of services: (i) washing the motor vehicle; (ii) cleaning an interior of the motor vehicle; (iii) repairing the motor vehicle; (iv) servicing the motor vehicle; (v) charging a drive battery of the motor vehicle; (vi) refueling with gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, combustible gas; (vii) software update for software running on an electronic component of the motor vehicle; (viii) tire change; (ix) interior service, including arranging mail and/or a package in an interior of the motor vehicle”. This limitation is elaborating on what the services are, and is not reciting a step or action that is implemented or performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 16-19, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano (US 2021/0316718 A1, cited in the IDS dated 5/7/2025) in view of Nordbruch (US 2017/0323565 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sugano discloses a method for managing at least one service for a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps: receiving a request to carry out an AVP process for a motor vehicle to be parked within a parking lot (see at least [0047] – the user X makes a reservation of the automated valet parking including a desired parking lot 1, i.e., sends a request); inquiring of an AVP service system (see at least [0047] - The terminal device 200 sends reservation information including the input information to the automated valet parking system 100. The automated valet parking system 100 executes reservation processing based on the reservation information.); receiving a response from the AVP service system (see at least [0047] - The automated valet parking system 100 executes reservation processing based on the reservation information, and sends a reservation completion notification to the terminal device 200. In addition, the automated valet parking system 100 sends authentication information associated with the reservation information to the terminal device 200.); and responding to the request to carry out an AVP process (see at least [0047-0048] - In addition, the automated valet parking system 100 sends authentication information associated with the reservation information to the terminal device 200. The terminal device 200 receives the authentication information and holds the received authentication information.).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving the request by the service management platform; inquiring by the service management platform; receiving the response by the service management platform; and responding to the request by the service management platform.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receiving the request by the service management platform; inquiring by the service management platform; receiving the response by the service management platform; and responding to the request by the service management platform (see at least [0075] – In a step 201, the parking facility management server receives a request via a communication network from a user of the communication network for carrying out at least one vehicle-specific service for a vehicle in the parking facility. It processes this request according to a step 203 in order, according to a step 205, to check whether or not the at least one service may be carried out in the parking facility for the vehicle in accordance with the request. In a step 205, parking facility management server ascertains a response as a function of the check. It sends this response in a step 207 back to the user, this via the communication network. In a step 209, the parking facility management server plans and coordinates the carrying out of the service if it is a positive response, that at least one service may be carried out.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nordbruch into the invention of Sugano with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to automatically help the user plan and coordinate services to be carried out in a parking facility in an efficient way to provide additional conveniences to the vehicle user (Nordbruch – [0022, 0078]). The use of an intermediate platform provides a centralized single point of coordination for the user to communicate with different parking lots or service providers, which reduces complexity on the user’s device. Furthermore, an intermediate platform for coordinating with multiple entities is used in various technical applications, and is considered an obvious implementation for one of ordinary skill in the art that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Sugano discloses wherein at least one further request to carry out a specific service for the motor vehicle is received (see at least [0121] – the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100), (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… when the automated valet parking system 100 receives the additional service request… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service), wherein, upon a positive response, a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… when the automated valet parking system 100 receives the additional service request… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the original parking space 4).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one further request is received by the service management platform; wherein the service management platform inquires; wherein a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated by the service management platform.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein at least one further request to carry out a specific service for the motor vehicle is received by the service management platform while the motor vehicle is within the parking lot (see at least [0075] – In a step 201, the parking facility management server receives a request via a communication network from a user of the communication network for carrying out at least one vehicle-specific service for a vehicle in the parking facility.), wherein the service management platform inquires of a further service system for carrying out the specific service whether the further service system can carry out the specific service based on the respective request while the motor vehicle is within the parking lot (see at least [0075] – In a step 201, the parking facility management server receives a request via a communication network from a user of the communication network for carrying out at least one vehicle-specific service for a vehicle in the parking facility. It processes this request according to a step 203 in order, according to a step 205, to check whether or not the at least one service may be carried out in the parking facility for the vehicle in accordance with the request. In a step 205, parking facility management server ascertains a response as a function of the check. It sends this response in a step 207 back to the user, this via the communication network.), wherein, upon a positive response, a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated by the service management platform based on the request to carry out an AVP process and based on the at least one further request to carry out a specific service in order to enable both the carrying out of the AVP process by the AVP service system and the carrying out of the specific service by the further service system (see at least [0075] – In a step 205, parking facility management server ascertains a response as a function of the check. It sends this response in a step 207 back to the user, this via the communication network. In a step 209, the parking facility management server plans and coordinates the carrying out of the service if it is a positive response, that at least one service may be carried out.).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Nordbruch are the same as in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 17, Sugano discloses wherein the coordinating includes (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… the additional service information ASV may indicate at least one of a time of day in which the additional service is available, a waiting time for the additional service to be available, and an expected time required for performing the additional service.… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the original parking space 4).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the coordinating includes the service management platform communicating.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the coordinating includes the service management platform communicating a time of day and/or date to the AVP service system at which or on which the motor vehicle must be at a predetermined location in the parking lot at which the specific service is to be carried out by the further service system, so that the AVP service system can guide the motor vehicle in an at least highly automated manner to the predetermined location on time (see at least [0023, 0075, 0081] – In a step 201, the parking facility management server receives a request via a communication network from a user of the communication network for carrying out at least one vehicle-specific service for a vehicle in the parking facility. It processes this request according to a step 203 in order, according to a step 205, to check whether or not the at least one service may be carried out in the parking facility for the vehicle in accordance with the request. In a step 205, parking facility management server ascertains a response as a function of the check. It sends this response in a step 207 back to the user, this via the communication network. In a step 209, the parking facility management server plans and coordinates the carrying out of the service if it is a positive response, that at least one service may be carried out… check whether the additional services may be offered during the intended parking duration or parking time).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Nordbruch are the same as in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 18, Sugano discloses wherein a (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… the additional service information ASV may indicate at least one of a time of day in which the additional service is available, a waiting time for the additional service to be available, and an expected time required for performing the additional service.… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the original parking space 4),
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of further requests are received by the service management platform; wherein a plurality of respective further service systems for carrying out the respective specific service are inquired of by the service management platform; the coordinating includes the service management platform determining a sequence; wherein, upon at least two positive responses, the coordinating includes the service management platform determining, based on at least one service parameter, a sequence according to which the services for the motor vehicle are to be carried out by the respective further service system.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein a plurality of further requests are received by the service management platform (see at least [0048, 0075] – multiple service positions are queried or requested); wherein a plurality of respective further service systems for carrying out the respective specific service are inquired of by the service management platform (see at least [0043, 0048, 0075] – check whether or not a service installation is available to carry out the at least one service... multiple service positions are queried or requested); the coordinating includes the service management platform determining a sequence (see at least [0043, 0048, 0075] - At least some of the services, which were queried or requested, may be advantageously carried out at the respective service positions before the vehicle is parked in the parking facility, other services being carried out at the corresponding service positions after the parking.); wherein, upon at least two positive responses, the coordinating includes the service management platform determining, based on at least one service parameter, a sequence according to which the services for the motor vehicle are to be carried out by the respective further service system (see at least [0043, 0048, 0075, 0083-0088] – check whether or not a service installation is available to carry out the at least one service... multiple service positions are queried or requested… at least some of the services, which were queried or requested, may be advantageously carried out at the respective service positions before the vehicle is parked in the parking facility, other services being carried out at the corresponding service positions after the parking… coordinating or planning the additional services).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Nordbruch are the same as in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 19, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one service parameter is in each case an element selected from the following group of service parameters: utilization of the service systems; utilization of the AVP service system; capacity of the service systems; capacity of the AVP service system; current and/or future traffic within the parking lot; parking position of the motor vehicle within the parking lot; predetermined locations; expected duration of carrying out one of the services.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the at least one service parameter is in each case an element selected from the following group of service parameters (see at least [0083-0088] - planning and coordinating include a check whether or not a service installation is available to carry out the at least one service, the processor being designed to ascertain the setpoint trajectory as a function of the check whether or not the service installation is available): utilization of the service systems (see at least [0084-0085] – based on which service installations are available, i.e., if installations are unavailable then they are being utilized); utilization of the AVP service system (see at least [0088] – based on whether parking positions are occupied, i.e., occupied parking positions are being utilized); capacity of the service systems (see at least [0084-0085] – based on which service installations are available, i.e., if installations are available then they have capacity); capacity of the AVP service system (see at least [0088] – based on whether parking positions are occupied, i.e., parking positions that are unoccupied indicate available capacity); current and/or future traffic within the parking lot (see at least [0088] – based on whether parking positions are occupied, i.e., if all parking positions are occupied current traffic in the parking lot is heavy); parking position of the motor vehicle within the parking lot; predetermined locations; expected duration of carrying out one of the services (see at least [0023, 0081] – check whether or not the service may be carried out during the intended parking duration or parking time of the vehicle and/or in a remaining parking time of the vehicle, i.e., whether expected duration of service is longer than remaining parking time).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Nordbruch are the same as in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 22, Sugano discloses wherein (see at least [0117, 0130] - the additional service is a part of the automated valet parking service 100… includes a vehicle management server).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein (i) the service management platform, (ii) the AVP service system, and (iii) the service system or the service systems, are respectively implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein (i) the service management platform, (ii) the AVP service system, and (iii) the service system or the service systems, are respectively implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine (see at least [0071, 0075, 0078, 0095] – parking facility management server 101, automatic valet parking, automated additional services, i.e., either carried out on a common cloud infrastructure/server/machine or separate cloud infrastructure/server/machine).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Nordbruch are the same as in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 23, Sugano discloses wherein the service is an element selected from the following group of services: (i) washing the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] – car wash); (ii) cleaning an interior of the motor vehicle; (iii) repairing the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] - repair); (iv) servicing the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] – inspection, repair, refueling, charging, tire change); (v) charging a drive battery of the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] - charging); (vi) refueling with gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, combustible gas (see at least [0117] - refueling); (vii) software update for software running on an electronic component of the motor vehicle; (viii) tire change (see at least [0117] – tire change); (ix) interior service, including arranging mail and/or a package in an interior of the motor vehicle.
Regarding claims 24-25, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 14, and it has been determined that claims 24-25 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 14; therefore, claims 24-25 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 14.
Claims 15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano in view of Nordbruch and Liu (US 2022/0130187 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, upon a positive response from the AVP service system, data needed to carry out the AVP process are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out an AVP process, wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the AVP process are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and, after receipt of the still missing data, the data are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, upon a positive response from the AVP service system, data needed to carry out the AVP process are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out an AVP process (see at least Fig. 3, [0005, 0123, 0128-0133, 0151-0154] – provide an automated valet parking service to automatically direct the vehicle to an idle parking space… after the vehicle moves to a specified drop-off area, the parking lot subsystem obtains identification information of the vehicle… the vehicle background may further send a communication key to the parking lot subsystem… the operation key may be preconfigured in the vehicle), wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the AVP process are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and, after receipt of the still missing data, the data are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system (see at least Fig. 3, [0135-0145] – the parking lot subsystem sends a request message to the vehicle background, where the request message includes the identification information of the vehicle, and the request message is used to request to check a status of a system of the vehicle… the status check report is used to indicate a checked status of a braking system and/or a checked status of a steering system of the vehicle… the vehicle background sends the status check report to the parking lot subsystem).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Liu into the invention of Sugano with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to more securely transfer driving authority by first performing an authentication process, and to prevent traffic accidents caused by an abnormal state of a braking system or a steering system of the vehicle by checking the status of these systems during a transfer process (Liu – [0007, 0123]).
Regarding claim 20, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, upon a positive response from the respective further service system, data needed to carry out the respective further service are forwarded by the service management platform to the respective service system when such data are already included in the respective at least one further request to carry out a specific service, wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the respective further service are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and after receipt of the still missing data, the are forwarded by the service management platform to the respective service system.
However, Sugano does disclose the respective further service system, the respective further service (see at least [0121] – the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100).
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, upon a positive response from a service system, data needed to carry out a service are forwarded by the service management platform to the service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out a specific service (see at least Fig. 3, [0005, 0123, 0128-0133, 0151-0154] – provide an automated valet parking service to automatically direct the vehicle to an idle parking space… after the vehicle moves to a specified drop-off area, the parking lot subsystem obtains identification information of the vehicle… the vehicle background may further send an operation key to the parking lot subsystem… the operation key may be preconfigured in the vehicle), wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the service are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and after receipt of the still missing data, the are forwarded by the service management platform to the service system (see at least Fig. 3, [0135-0145] – the parking lot subsystem sends a request message to the vehicle background, where the request message includes the identification information of the vehicle, and the request message is used to request to check a status of a system of the vehicle… the status check report is used to indicate a checked status of a braking system and/or a checked status of a steering system of the vehicle… the vehicle background sends the status check report to the parking lot subsystem).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Liu is the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the needed data and missing data (identification information and the operation key in Liu) would be applicable for Sugano’s AVP services and further services because this data is necessary for transferring the driving authority, and in Sugano the driving authority is needed for autonomously moving the vehicle to the additional service facility and to the parking space.
Regarding claim 21, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the needed data include one or more elements of the following data: (i) motor vehicle length; (ii) motor vehicle width; (iii) motor vehicle height; (iv) certificate and/or password and/or access key for accessing a motor vehicle component including a drive system and/or brake system and/or steering system and/or clutch system and/or lighting system and/or door lock and/or tank lock and/or charging opening lock and/or charging component and/or trunk lock and/or engine compartment lock and/or control unit and/or main control unit, which is needed to carry out the service or the AVP process; (v) motor vehicle turning radius; (vi) driving characteristics of the motor vehicle; (vii) level of automation.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the needed data include one or more elements of the following data: (i) motor vehicle length; (ii) motor vehicle width; (iii) motor vehicle height; (iv) certificate and/or password and/or access key for accessing a motor vehicle component including a drive system and/or brake system and/or steering system and/or clutch system and/or lighting system and/or door lock and/or tank lock and/or charging opening lock and/or charging component and/or trunk lock and/or engine compartment lock and/or control unit and/or main control unit, which is needed to carry out the service or the AVP process (see at least [0005, 0151-0155] – operation key to determine whether the parking lot subsystem has a driving authority… braking system and steering system); (v) motor vehicle turning radius; (vi) driving characteristics of the motor vehicle (see at least [0139-0144] – vehicle checks the status of the system, for example checking the status of a braking operations and/or a steering operation… the status check report is sent to the parking lot subsystem); (vii) level of automation.
The motivation to combine Sugano and Liu are the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Alternate 35 USC § 103 Rejections
Claims 14, 16-17, and 22-25 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano in view of Peng (CN 113903185 A, a machine translation is attached and it being relied upon).
Regarding claim 14, Sugano discloses a method for managing at least one service for a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps: receiving a request to carry out an AVP process for a motor vehicle to be parked within a parking lot (see at least [0047] – the user X makes a reservation of the automated valet parking including a desired parking lot 1, i.e., sends a request); inquiring of an AVP service system (see at least [0047] - The terminal device 200 sends reservation information including the input information to the automated valet parking system 100. The automated valet parking system 100 executes reservation processing based on the reservation information.); receiving a response from the AVP service system (see at least [0047] - The automated valet parking system 100 executes reservation processing based on the reservation information, and sends a reservation completion notification to the terminal device 200. In addition, the automated valet parking system 100 sends authentication information associated with the reservation information to the terminal device 200.); and responding to the request to carry out an AVP process (see at least [0047-0048] - In addition, the automated valet parking system 100 sends authentication information associated with the reservation information to the terminal device 200. The terminal device 200 receives the authentication information and holds the received authentication information.).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving the request by the service management platform; inquiring by the service management platform; receiving the response by the service management platform; and responding to the request by the service management platform.
Peng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receiving the request by the service management platform; inquiring by the service management platform; receiving the response by the service management platform; and responding to the request by the service management platform (see at least [n0038-n0041] – a user initiates an AVP request through a mobile APP, the vehicle enterprise cloud 110 receives the AVP request, sends a query request to the corresponding vehicle to query the corresponding vehicle status, receives the status returned by the vehicle, and after confirming that there is no error, sends an AVP request to the city center cloud 102… the city center cloud 102 receives the AVP request sent by the vehicle manufacturer cloud 110, and starts the AVP service according to the AVP request, sending the corresponding vehicle's AVP service start command to the parking lot edge cloud 104; before/after/simultaneously, it sends the AVP service start command distribution status to the vehicle manufacturer cloud 110, so that the vehicle manufacturer cloud 110 can send a start command to the corresponding vehicle according to the distribution status, so as to hand over control authority to the parking lot edge cloud 104; after the vehicle hands over control authority, it returns the current status of the vehicle to the vehicle manufacturer cloud 110, that is, the control authority is handed over to the parking lot edge cloud 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Peng into the invention of Sugano with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is because vehicles manufactured by different automakers may be equipped with different autonomous driving and AVP functions, therefore the user client needs to connect to the city center cloud through the vehicle manufacturer cloud to issue commands, hand over vehicle control authority, and return the vehicle status (Peng – [n0037]). This provides a unified parking management platform that connects to both the vehicle manufacturer’s cloud and the parking lot edge cloud thereby providing a central interface between the vehicle and the parking lot (Peng – [n0011, n0036]). The use of an intermediate platform provides a centralized single point of coordination for the user to communicate with different parking lots or service providers, which reduces complexity on the user’s device. Furthermore, an intermediate platform for coordinating with multiple entities is used in various technical applications, and is considered an obvious implementation for one of ordinary skill in the art that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Sugano discloses wherein at least one further request to carry out a specific service for the motor vehicle is received (see at least [0121] – the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100), carrying out the specific service whether the further service system can carry out the specific service based on the respective request while the motor vehicle is within the parking lot (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… when the automated valet parking system 100 receives the additional service request… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service), wherein, upon a positive response, a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… when the automated valet parking system 100 receives the additional service request… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the original parking space 4).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one further request is received by the service management platform; wherein the service management platform inquires; wherein a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated by the service management platform.
Peng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein at least one further request is received by the service management platform; wherein the service management platform inquires; wherein a stay of the motor vehicle is coordinated by the service management platform (see at least [n0038-n0041] – a user initiates an AVP request through a mobile APP, the vehicle enterprise cloud 110 receives the AVP request, sends a query request to the corresponding vehicle to query the corresponding vehicle status, receives the status returned by the vehicle, and after confirming that there is no error, sends an AVP request to the city center cloud 102… through the city cloud 102, it can realize functions such as starting the AVP service, reserving parking spaces, summoning vehicles, and charging services on the edge clouds 104 of each parking lot, without having to access the parking lot edge cloud 104 separately).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Peng are the same as in the alternate rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 17, Sugano discloses wherein the coordinating includes (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… the additional service information ASV may indicate at least one of a time of day in which the additional service is available, a waiting time for the additional service to be available, and an expected time required for performing the additional service.… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the original parking space 4).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the coordinating includes the service management platform communicating.
Peng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the coordinating includes the service management platform communicating (see at least [n0038-n0041] – the vehicle enterprise cloud 110 receives the AVP request, sends a query request to the corresponding vehicle to query the corresponding vehicle status, receives the status returned by the vehicle, and after confirming that there is no error, sends an AVP request to the city center cloud 102… through the city cloud 102, it can realize functions such as starting the AVP service, reserving parking spaces, summoning vehicles, and charging services on the edge clouds 104 of each parking lot, without having to access the parking lot edge cloud 104 separately).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Peng are the same as in the alternate rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 22, Sugano discloses wherein implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine (see at least [0117, 0130] - the additional service is a part of the automated valet parking service 100… includes a vehicle management server).
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein (i) the service management platform, (ii) the AVP service system, and (iii) the service system or the service systems, are respectively implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine.
Peng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein (i) the service management platform, (ii) the AVP service system, and (iii) the service system or the service systems, are respectively implemented in a separate cloud infrastructure and/or in a common cloud infrastructure and/or in a stand-alone server and/or in a separate virtual machine (see at least Fig. 4, [n0038-n0041, n0045] – the vehicle enterprise cloud 110… the city center cloud 102… the parking lot edge cloud 104… the parking lot edge cloud 104 includes a parking management system 202, an AVP command and dispatch system 204, an in-park traffic real-time data fusion and recording system 206, and a high-precision map dynamic and static data system 208).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Peng are the same as in the alternate rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 23, Sugano discloses wherein the service is an element selected from the following group of services: (i) washing the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] – car wash); (ii) cleaning an interior of the motor vehicle; (iii) repairing the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] - repair); (iv) servicing the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] – inspection, repair, refueling, charging, tire change); (v) charging a drive battery of the motor vehicle (see at least [0117] - charging); (vi) refueling with gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, combustible gas (see at least [0117] - refueling); (vii) software update for software running on an electronic component of the motor vehicle; (viii) tire change (see at least [0117] – tire change); (ix) interior service, including arranging mail and/or a package in an interior of the motor vehicle.
Regarding claims 24-25, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 14, and it has been determined that claims 24-25 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 14; therefore, claims 24-25 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 14.
Claims 15 and 20-21 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano in view of Peng and Liu.
Regarding claim 15, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, upon a positive response from the AVP service system, data needed to carry out the AVP process are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out an AVP process, wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the AVP process are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and, after receipt of the still missing data, the data are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, upon a positive response from the AVP service system, data needed to carry out the AVP process are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out an AVP process (see at least Fig. 3, [0005, 0123, 0128-0133, 0151-0154] – provide an automated valet parking service to automatically direct the vehicle to an idle parking space… after the vehicle moves to a specified drop-off area, the parking lot subsystem obtains identification information of the vehicle… the vehicle background may further send a communication key to the parking lot subsystem… the operation key may be preconfigured in the vehicle), wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the AVP process are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and, after receipt of the still missing data, the data are forwarded by the service management platform to the AVP service system (see at least Fig. 3, [0135-0145] – the parking lot subsystem sends a request message to the vehicle background, where the request message includes the identification information of the vehicle, and the request message is used to request to check a status of a system of the vehicle… the status check report is used to indicate a checked status of a braking system and/or a checked status of a steering system of the vehicle… the vehicle background sends the status check report to the parking lot subsystem).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Liu into the invention of Sugano with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to more securely transfer driving authority by first performing an authentication process, and to prevent traffic accidents caused by an abnormal state of a braking system or a steering system of the vehicle by checking the status of these systems during a transfer process (Liu – [0007, 0123]).
Regarding claim 20, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, upon a positive response from the respective further service system, data needed to carry out the respective further service are forwarded by the service management platform to the respective service system when such data are already included in the respective at least one further request to carry out a specific service, wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the respective further service are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and after receipt of the still missing data, the are forwarded by the service management platform to the respective service system.
However, Sugano does disclose the respective further service system, the respective further service (see at least [0121] – the user X operates the terminal device 200 to send an additional service request REQ to the automated valet parking system 100).
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, upon a positive response from a service system, data needed to carry out a service are forwarded by the service management platform to the service system when such data are already included in the request to carry out a specific service (see at least Fig. 3, [0005, 0123, 0128-0133, 0151-0154] – provide an automated valet parking service to automatically direct the vehicle to an idle parking space… after the vehicle moves to a specified drop-off area, the parking lot subsystem obtains identification information of the vehicle… the vehicle background may further send an operation key to the parking lot subsystem… the operation key may be preconfigured in the vehicle), wherein, when data for the technical implementation of the service are still missing, the still missing data are requested by the service management platform and after receipt of the still missing data, the are forwarded by the service management platform to the service system (see at least Fig. 3, [0135-0145] – the parking lot subsystem sends a request message to the vehicle background, where the request message includes the identification information of the vehicle, and the request message is used to request to check a status of a system of the vehicle… the status check report is used to indicate a checked status of a braking system and/or a checked status of a steering system of the vehicle… the vehicle background sends the status check report to the parking lot subsystem).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Liu is the same as in the alternate rejection of claim 15 above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the needed data and missing data (identification information and the operation key in Liu) would be applicable for Sugano’s AVP services and further services because this data is necessary for transferring the driving authority, and in Sugano the driving authority is needed for autonomously moving the vehicle to the additional service facility and to the parking space.
Regarding claim 21, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the needed data include one or more elements of the following data: (i) motor vehicle length; (ii) motor vehicle width; (iii) motor vehicle height; (iv) certificate and/or password and/or access key for accessing a motor vehicle component including a drive system and/or brake system and/or steering system and/or clutch system and/or lighting system and/or door lock and/or tank lock and/or charging opening lock and/or charging component and/or trunk lock and/or engine compartment lock and/or control unit and/or main control unit, which is needed to carry out the service or the AVP process; (v) motor vehicle turning radius; (vi) driving characteristics of the motor vehicle; (vii) level of automation.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the needed data include one or more elements of the following data: (i) motor vehicle length; (ii) motor vehicle width; (iii) motor vehicle height; (iv) certificate and/or password and/or access key for accessing a motor vehicle component including a drive system and/or brake system and/or steering system and/or clutch system and/or lighting system and/or door lock and/or tank lock and/or charging opening lock and/or charging component and/or trunk lock and/or engine compartment lock and/or control unit and/or main control unit, which is needed to carry out the service or the AVP process (see at least [0005, 0151-0155] – operation key to determine whether the parking lot subsystem has a driving authority… braking system and steering system); (v) motor vehicle turning radius; (vi) driving characteristics of the motor vehicle (see at least [0139-0144] – vehicle checks the status of the system, for example checking the status of a braking operations and/or a steering operation… the status check report is sent to the parking lot subsystem); (vii) level of automation.
The motivation to combine Sugano and Liu are the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claims 18-19 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano in view of Peng and Nordbruch.
Regarding claim 18, Sugano discloses wherein a (see at least [0119-0126] – the additional service information ASV proposes to perform the additional service including at least one of inspection, repair, and tire change… the additional service information ASV may indicate at least one of a time of day in which the additional service is available, a waiting time for the additional service to be available, and an expected time required for performing the additional service.… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the additional service facility 7… the operator performs the additional service… the automated valet parking system 100 performs move processing that moves the AVP vehicle 10 to the original parking space 4),
Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of further requests are received by the service management platform; wherein a plurality of respective further service systems for carrying out the respective specific service are inquired of by the service management platform; the coordinating includes the service management platform determining a sequence; wherein, upon at least two positive responses, the coordinating includes the service management platform determining, based on at least one service parameter, a sequence according to which the services for the motor vehicle are to be carried out by the respective further service system.
Peng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the service management platform (see at least [n0038-n0041] – the vehicle enterprise cloud 110 receives the AVP request, sends a query request to the corresponding vehicle to query the corresponding vehicle status, receives the status returned by the vehicle, and after confirming that there is no error, sends an AVP request to the city center cloud 102… through the city cloud 102, it can realize functions such as starting the AVP service, reserving parking spaces, summoning vehicles, and charging services on the edge clouds 104 of each parking lot, without having to access the parking lot edge cloud 104 separately).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Peng are the same as in the alternate rejection of claim 14 above.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein a plurality of further requests are received by the service management platform (see at least [0048, 0075] – multiple service positions are queried or requested); wherein a plurality of respective further service systems for carrying out the respective specific service are inquired of by the service management platform (see at least [0043, 0048, 0075] – check whether or not a service installation is available to carry out the at least one service... multiple service positions are queried or requested); the coordinating includes the service management platform determining a sequence (see at least [0043, 0048, 0075] - At least some of the services, which were queried or requested, may be advantageously carried out at the respective service positions before the vehicle is parked in the parking facility, other services being carried out at the corresponding service positions after the parking.); wherein, upon at least two positive responses, the coordinating includes the service management platform determining, based on at least one service parameter, a sequence according to which the services for the motor vehicle are to be carried out by the respective further service system (see at least [0043, 0048, 0075, 0083-0088] – check whether or not a service installation is available to carry out the at least one service... multiple service positions are queried or requested… at least some of the services, which were queried or requested, may be advantageously carried out at the respective service positions before the vehicle is parked in the parking facility, other services being carried out at the corresponding service positions after the parking… coordinating or planning the additional services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nordbruch into the invention of Sugano with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to automatically help the user plan and coordinate services to be carried out in a parking facility in an efficient way to provide additional conveniences to the vehicle user (Nordbruch – [0022, 0078]).
Regarding claim 19, Sugano does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one service parameter is in each case an element selected from the following group of service parameters: utilization of the service systems; utilization of the AVP service system; capacity of the service systems; capacity of the AVP service system; current and/or future traffic within the parking lot; parking position of the motor vehicle within the parking lot; predetermined locations; expected duration of carrying out one of the services.
Nordbruch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the at least one service parameter is in each case an element selected from the following group of service parameters (see at least [0083-0088] - planning and coordinating include a check whether or not a service installation is available to carry out the at least one service, the processor being designed to ascertain the setpoint trajectory as a function of the check whether or not the service installation is available): utilization of the service systems (see at least [0084-0085] – based on which service installations are available, i.e., if installations are unavailable then they are being utilized); utilization of the AVP service system (see at least [0088] – based on whether parking positions are occupied, i.e., occupied parking positions are being utilized); capacity of the service systems (see at least [0084-0085] – based on which service installations are available, i.e., if installations are available then they have capacity); capacity of the AVP service system (see at least [0088] – based on whether parking positions are occupied, i.e., parking positions that are unoccupied indicate available capacity); current and/or future traffic within the parking lot (see at least [0088] – based on whether parking positions are occupied, i.e., if all parking positions are occupied current traffic in the parking lot is heavy); parking position of the motor vehicle within the parking lot; predetermined locations; expected duration of carrying out one of the services (see at least [0023, 0081] – check whether or not the service may be carried out during the intended parking duration or parking time of the vehicle and/or in a remaining parking time of the vehicle, i.e., whether expected duration of service is longer than remaining parking time).
The motivation to combine Sugano and Nordbruch are the same as in the alternate rejection of claim 18 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following relevant prior art was cited but not applied: Dermosessian (US 2017/0206471 A1) and Khurewattanakul (US 2021/0402989 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights