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 .
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the parking space" in lines 8-9 and 11. It is unclear and indefinite to which parking space is referring to? Is the parking space that is associated with the first user? Is it the parking space that is associated with the second user?.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as stated above because due to their dependency from claim 1. Claims 2-8 are also indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the use" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the detection of motion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the detection " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the detection " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the use" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the parking space" in lines 11 and 13. It is unclear and indefinite to which parking space is referring to? Is the parking space that is associated with the first user? Is it the parking space that is associated with the second user?.
Claims 10-13 are rejected as stated above because due to their dependency from claim 9. Claims 10-13 are also indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the use" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the use" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the parking space" in line 3. It is unclear and indefinite to which parking space is referring to? Is the parking space that is associated with the first user? Is it the parking space that is associated with the second user?.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the parking space" in lines 9-10 and 12. It is unclear and indefinite to which parking space is referring to? Is the parking space that is associated with the first user? Is it the parking space that is associated with the second user?.
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.
1. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 1 recites series of steps for: detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space, are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to a mental process grouping “collecting informations, analyzing it by predicting the results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which is technically an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, Skilled technicians can inspect the status of parking spaces and make such determinations mentally or with pencil-and-paper. The 2019 PEG classifies observations/evaluations/judgments as “mental processes,” even if aided by tools. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to how mobile devices operate. It claims a result (directing the second user to the parking space) without specifying a particular signal-processing technique or architectural change that improves system performance. Contrast Enfish (improved data structure) or McRO (specific rules improving animation). Further, no particular machine is claimed beyond , and the steps could be performed on a generic processor analyzing the collected data. The method gathers and analyzes data and reaches a conclusion, technically No physical actuation or transformation is claimed. Contrast Diehr. Treating the claim as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g., The collection, and prediction of data may be accurately identified without relying on a method for identifying an available parking space, which improves the accuracy of collecting and predicting the status of parking space data. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address this improvement because merely acquiring the features of detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a sequence of steps of: detecting, updating and predicting information/features, which is an act of collecting informations, analyzing it by predicting the results of the collection and analysis, that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, the sequence of steps reflect a conventional information-processing workflow (akin to non-intrusive load monitoring). There is no recited unconventional arrangement producing a technological improvement (contrast BASCOM’s non-conventional ordered combination). Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8.
Dependent claims 2-8, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and said claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 9 recites series of steps for: detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space, are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to a mental process grouping “collecting informations, analyzing it by predicting the results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which is technically an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, Skilled technicians can inspect the status of parking spaces and make such determinations mentally or with pencil-and-paper. The 2019 PEG classifies observations/evaluations/judgments as “mental processes,” even if aided by tools. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to how computers, mobile devices or central server operate. It claims a result (directing the second user to the parking space) without specifying a particular signal-processing technique or architectural change that improves system performance. Contrast Enfish (improved data structure) or McRO (specific rules improving animation). Further, no particular machine is claimed beyond , and the steps could be performed on a generic processor analyzing the collected data. The method gathers and analyzes data and reaches a conclusion, technically No physical actuation or transformation is claimed. Contrast Diehr. Treating the claim as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g., The collection, and prediction of data may be accurately identified without relying on a method for identifying an available parking space, which improves the accuracy of collecting and predicting the status of parking space data. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address this improvement because merely acquiring the features of detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement. Thus, claim 9 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a sequence of steps of: detecting, updating and predicting information/features, which is an act of collecting informations, analyzing it by predicting the results of the collection and analysis, that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, the sequence of steps reflect a conventional information-processing workflow (akin to non-intrusive load monitoring). There is no recited unconventional arrangement producing a technological improvement (contrast BASCOM’s non-conventional ordered combination). Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 10-13.
Dependent claims 10-13, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and said claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim14 recites series of steps for: detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space, are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to a mental process grouping “collecting informations, analyzing it by predicting the results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which is technically an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, Skilled technicians can inspect the status of parking spaces and make such determinations mentally or with pencil-and-paper. The 2019 PEG classifies observations/evaluations/judgments as “mental processes,” even if aided by tools. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to how computers, mobile devices or central server operate. It claims a result (directing the second user to the parking space) without specifying a particular signal-processing technique or architectural change that improves system performance. Contrast Enfish (improved data structure) or McRO (specific rules improving animation). Further, no particular machine is claimed beyond , and the steps could be performed on a generic processor analyzing the collected data. The method gathers and analyzes data and reaches a conclusion, technically No physical actuation or transformation is claimed. Contrast Diehr. Treating the claim as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g., The collection, and prediction of data may be accurately identified without relying on a method for identifying an available parking space, which improves the accuracy of collecting and predicting the status of parking space data. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address this improvement because merely acquiring the features of detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user; updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied; performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user; receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space; performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space; and directing the second user to the parking space is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement. Thus, claim 14 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a sequence of steps of: detecting, updating and predicting information/features, which is an act of collecting informations, analyzing it by predicting the results of the collection and analysis, that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, the sequence of steps reflect a conventional information-processing workflow (akin to non-intrusive load monitoring). There is no recited unconventional arrangement producing a technological improvement (contrast BASCOM’s non-conventional ordered combination). Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Berns et al. (US2017/0178511A1) hereafter Berns.
Regarding claim 1, Berns discloses a computer-implemented method of identifying an available parking space, comprising:
detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user (fig 2:230; par[0019], [0102], [0117]: Parking data repository 140 can include parking data (e.g., real time and/or historical data), such as data that corresponds to various aspects of parking spots being occupied and/or vacated at particular times, various aspects of users requesting parking spots (e.g., at particular times in particular areas), as well as various other information that can impact various aspects of parking (e.g., weather, maps that reflect parking meter prices for certain parking spots, maps that reflect various parking regulations such as no parking zones, fire hydrants, etc., calendars that reflect dates on which parking may be prohibited at certain times in certain locations such as due to ‘alternate side parking’ regulations. As noted, various aspects of the referenced data/determinations can be depicted/displayed as a heat map, showing open spots as they become available (e.g., by changing in shape/color as probability that the availability of the spot changes), and/or as a map of current data (e.g., spots occupied/spots open)). That is, it can be appreciated that, as described herein, various determinations can be made with respect to whether or not a parking space is occupied or vacant (e.g., based on various inputs, based on an affirmative indication from a user that the parking space is vacant, etc.).);
updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied (par[0018], [0019], [0043], [0044]: At block 220, upon receiving the parking status indicator(s) (e.g., at the central database), such indicator(s) can be processed/analyzed, e.g., to determine whether a car (e.g., the vehicle with respect to which such indicators are provided) is parking, parked, un-parking (e.g., leaving a parking space). Additionally, in certain implementations the chronological indicator(s) and/or geographical indicator(s) associated with such an event can also be associated with the referenced determination.);
performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user (par[0108]: the referenced inputs can include inputs that are determined to correlate with various previously received inputs (such as those that may be stored in parking data repository 140) that are determined to coincide with an incidence of unparking (e.g., exiting a parking spot). For example, various inputs (e.g., inputs received from a GPS receiver of the device that correspond to the location/path of the device, motion inputs that correspond to movement of the device, etc.), that have been previously received with respect to a device and which have been observed to be followed by the user exiting a parking space, can be utilized to determine/predict that the user is likely to be exiting a parking space (e.g., upon observing similar/comparable input(s)).);
receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space (fig 3:330; par[0118], [0119]: At block 330, one or more parking requests can be received. In certain implementations, such parking requests can be received from one or more devices (e.g., user device 102N and/or in-vehicle system 104A as depicted in FIG. 1). It should be understood that while in certain implementations the referenced parking requests may be ‘explicit’ or ‘direct’ (in that the referenced user affirmatively indicates their desire to park, e.g., in a particular location—e.g., by indicating, such as within a parking coordination application executing on device 102, that the user wishes to park at/close to a current location and/or a particular destination), in other implementations such requests can be generated based on various determinations that can be made, for example, based on various ‘implicit’ inputs or indications that may reflect that the user is likely to be looking for parking in the referenced location. For example, various motion inputs and/or patterns thereof (e.g., the user stopping with a greater degree of frequency, such as in the middle of the street, the user circling a block or traveling repeatedly around several blocks, reflecting that the user is likely looking for parking in such a location, etc.) can reflect that a user is likely to be looking for parking);
performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space (fig 3:340; par[0122], [0124], [0126, [0127], [0131]: At block 340, one or more parking requests (such as those received at 330) can be processed. In doing so, a degree of compatibility can be computed (e.g., in relation to a parking location at which a vehicle has been determined to be parked), such as between a parking request (such as a parking request received at 330) and a chronological interval (such as the chronological interval computed at 320). That is, having computed a chronological interval (such as is described at 320) that reflects a time interval within which a parking space at a particular location is likely to be vacated, and having received (e.g., at 330) a parking request with respect to another location, a degree of compatibility between the parking request (which may be in relation to one location) and the chronological interval (which may relate to a parking space in another location) can be computed.); and
dependent on the first prediction and the second prediction, directing the second user to the parking space (fig 3:370, 380; par[0130], [0131]: the user that is vacating the parking space to be notified with respect to various aspects of the requesting user, such as in order to better enable the requesting user to utilizing the parking space being vacated (e.g., in a scenario in which the vacating user can wait until the requesting user arrives to enable the requesting user to utilize the parking space). For example, in certain implementations such a notification (that is provided to the device associated with the vehicle that is vacating the parking space, e.g., vehicle 106A as shown in FIG. 4) can indicate a current location of the requesting device and/or an estimated arrival time of the second device to the parking space (based upon which, for example, the user that is vacating the space can decide whether or not to wait until the requesting user arrives). By way of further example, in certain implementations one or more identifying characteristics of the requesting vehicle (e.g., the make, model, color, etc., of the vehicle) can be provided in the referenced notification. In doing so, the user that is vacating the parking space can more easily identify the requesting user who wishes to utilize the space. In one aspect, block 380 is performed by parking coordination engine 130.).
Regarding claim 2, Berns discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the first prediction comprises the use of historical data (Berns par[0046], [0066], [0094], [0117], [0126]: Additionally, in certain implementations various historical (and/or real-time) factors and/or trends can be accounted for in determining the referenced compatibilities. For example, upon determining (based on historical and/or real-time data) that parking spaces are being vacated frequently in a particular location (e.g., on a weekday morning when many people are leaving for work), a higher compatibility threshold can be applied when identifying/selecting a compatible parking space (for example, waiting for a parking space that is closer to the indicated destination to become available in a scenario in which it has been determined to be likely that parking spaces are being vacated frequently in such an area at such a time).).
Regarding claim 4, Berns discloses the method of claim , wherein the performing of the first prediction comprises the detection of a data connection between a mobile device of the first user and a vehicle of the first user (Berns par[0015], [0018], [0036], [0037]: Bluetooth connection or disconnection event. This data can be generated by a Bluetooth device installed in the car or from a mobile device connected to the car's Bluetooth device. Connection/disconnection of a device to an infotainment system such as may be installed/integrated within the vehicle (and/or communications between the device and such a system).).
Regarding claim 9, Berns discloses a system for identifying an available parking space, comprising:
a central server (fig 1:120; par[0018]: Server machine 120 can be a rackmount server, a router computer, a personal computer, a portable digital assistant, a mobile phone, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a camera, a video camera, a netbook, a desktop computer, a smartphone, any combination of the above, or any other such computing device capable of implementing the various features described herein. Server machine 120 can include components such as parking coordination engine 130, and parking data repository 140. The components can be combined together or separated in further components, according to a particular implementation. It should be noted that in some implementations, various components of server machine 120 may run on separate machines (for example, parking data repository 140 can be a separate device). Moreover, some operations of certain of the components are described in more detail below with respect to FIGS. 2 and 3), operable to:
detect that a parking space has been occupied by a first user (fig 2:230; par[0019], [0047]: Parking data repository 140 can include parking data (e.g., real time and/or historical data), such as data that corresponds to various aspects of parking spots being occupied and/or vacated at particular times, various aspects of users requesting parking spots (e.g., at particular times in particular areas), as well as various other information that can impact various aspects of parking (e.g., weather, maps that reflect parking meter prices for certain parking spots, maps that reflect various parking regulations such as no parking zones, fire hydrants, etc., calendars that reflect dates on which parking may be prohibited at certain times in certain locations such as due to ‘alternate side parking’ regulations. That is, the reference parking status determinations (e.g., as determined with respect to multiple vehicles within a particular geographic location) as well as various associated data items (e.g., timestamp, location, etc.) can be utilized/combined to generate a dynamic mapping that can reflect, for example, where cars are parked (and/or are relatively more likely to be parked) and where parking spots are open/free at a given time (and/or are relatively more likely to be open)..));
update an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied (par[0018], [0019], [0043], [0044]: At block 220, upon receiving the parking status indicator(s) (e.g., at the central database), such indicator(s) can be processed/analyzed, e.g., to determine whether a car (e.g., the vehicle with respect to which such indicators are provided) is parking, parked, un-parking (e.g., leaving a parking space). Additionally, in certain implementations the chronological indicator(s) and/or geographical indicator(s) associated with such an event can also be associated with the referenced determination.);
perform a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user (par[0108]: the referenced inputs can include inputs that are determined to correlate with various previously received inputs (such as those that may be stored in parking data repository 140) that are determined to coincide with an incidence of unparking (e.g., exiting a parking spot). For example, various inputs (e.g., inputs received from a GPS receiver of the device that correspond to the location/path of the device, motion inputs that correspond to movement of the device, etc.), that have been previously received with respect to a device and which have been observed to be followed by the user exiting a parking space, can be utilized to determine/predict that the user is likely to be exiting a parking space (e.g., upon observing similar/comparable input(s)).);
receive an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space from a second mobile device (fig 3:330; par[0118], [0119]: At block 330, one or more parking requests can be received. In certain implementations, such parking requests can be received from one or more devices (e.g., user device 102N and/or in-vehicle system 104A as depicted in FIG. 1). It should be understood that while in certain implementations the referenced parking requests may be ‘explicit’ or ‘direct’ (in that the referenced user affirmatively indicates their desire to park, e.g., in a particular location—e.g., by indicating, such as within a parking coordination application executing on device 102, that the user wishes to park at/close to a current location and/or a particular destination), in other implementations such requests can be generated based on various determinations that can be made, for example, based on various ‘implicit’ inputs or indications that may reflect that the user is likely to be looking for parking in the referenced location. For example, various motion inputs and/or patterns thereof (e.g., the user stopping with a greater degree of frequency, such as in the middle of the street, the user circling a block or traveling repeatedly around several blocks, reflecting that the user is likely looking for parking in such a location, etc.) can reflect that a user is likely to be looking for parking);
performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space (fig 3:340; par[0122], [0124], [0126, [0127], [0131]: At block 340, one or more parking requests (such as those received at 330) can be processed. In doing so, a degree of compatibility can be computed (e.g., in relation to a parking location at which a vehicle has been determined to be parked), such as between a parking request (such as a parking request received at 330) and a chronological interval (such as the chronological interval computed at 320). That is, having computed a chronological interval (such as is described at 320) that reflects a time interval within which a parking space at a particular location is likely to be vacated, and having received (e.g., at 330) a parking request with respect to another location, a degree of compatibility between the parking request (which may be in relation to one location) and the chronological interval (which may relate to a parking space in another location) can be computed.); and
dependent on the first prediction and the second prediction, directing the second user to the parking space (fig 3:370, 380; par[0130], [0131]: the user that is vacating the parking space to be notified with respect to various aspects of the requesting user, such as in order to better enable the requesting user to utilizing the parking space being vacated (e.g., in a scenario in which the vacating user can wait until the requesting user arrives to enable the requesting user to utilize the parking space). For example, in certain implementations such a notification (that is provided to the device associated with the vehicle that is vacating the parking space, e.g., vehicle 106A as shown in FIG. 4) can indicate a current location of the requesting device and/or an estimated arrival time of the second device to the parking space (based upon which, for example, the user that is vacating the space can decide whether or not to wait until the requesting user arrives). By way of further example, in certain implementations one or more identifying characteristics of the requesting vehicle (e.g., the make, model, color, etc., of the vehicle) can be provided in the referenced notification. In doing so, the user that is vacating the parking space can more easily identify the requesting user who wishes to utilize the space. In one aspect, block 380 is performed by parking coordination engine 130.).
Regarding claim 14, Berns discloses a system for identifying an available parking space, comprising:
a central server (fig 1:120; par[0018]: Server machine 120 can be a rackmount server, a router computer, a personal computer, a portable digital assistant, a mobile phone, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a camera, a video camera, a netbook, a desktop computer, a smartphone, any combination of the above, or any other such computing device capable of implementing the various features described herein. Server machine 120 can include components such as parking coordination engine 130, and parking data repository 140. The components can be combined together or separated in further components, according to a particular implementation. It should be noted that in some implementations, various components of server machine 120 may run on separate machines (for example, parking data repository 140 can be a separate device). Moreover, some operations of certain of the components are described in more detail below with respect to FIGS. 2 and 3), operable to:
detecting that a parking space has been occupied by a first user (fig 2:230; par[0019], [0047]: Parking data repository 140 can include parking data (e.g., real time and/or historical data), such as data that corresponds to various aspects of parking spots being occupied and/or vacated at particular times, various aspects of users requesting parking spots (e.g., at particular times in particular areas), as well as various other information that can impact various aspects of parking (e.g., weather, maps that reflect parking meter prices for certain parking spots, maps that reflect various parking regulations such as no parking zones, fire hydrants, etc., calendars that reflect dates on which parking may be prohibited at certain times in certain locations such as due to ‘alternate side parking’ regulations. That is, the reference parking status determinations (e.g., as determined with respect to multiple vehicles within a particular geographic location) as well as various associated data items (e.g., timestamp, location, etc.) can be utilized/combined to generate a dynamic mapping that can reflect, for example, where cars are parked (and/or are relatively more likely to be parked) and where parking spots are open/free at a given time (and/or are relatively more likely to be open)..));
updating an occupancy database that the parking space has been occupied (par[0018], [0019], [0043], [0044]: At block 220, upon receiving the parking status indicator(s) (e.g., at the central database), such indicator(s) can be processed/analyzed, e.g., to determine whether a car (e.g., the vehicle with respect to which such indicators are provided) is parking, parked, un-parking (e.g., leaving a parking space). Additionally, in certain implementations the chronological indicator(s) and/or geographical indicator(s) associated with such an event can also be associated with the referenced determination.);
performing a first prediction regarding when the parking space will become available from the first user (par[0108]: the referenced inputs can include inputs that are determined to correlate with various previously received inputs (such as those that may be stored in parking data repository 140) that are determined to coincide with an incidence of unparking (e.g., exiting a parking spot). For example, various inputs (e.g., inputs received from a GPS receiver of the device that correspond to the location/path of the device, motion inputs that correspond to movement of the device, etc.), that have been previously received with respect to a device and which have been observed to be followed by the user exiting a parking space, can be utilized to determine/predict that the user is likely to be exiting a parking space (e.g., upon observing similar/comparable input(s)).);
receiving an indication that a second user is seeking a parking space (fig 3:330; par[0118], [0119]: At block 330, one or more parking requests can be received. In certain implementations, such parking requests can be received from one or more devices (e.g., user device 102N and/or in-vehicle system 104A as depicted in FIG. 1). It should be understood that while in certain implementations the referenced parking requests may be ‘explicit’ or ‘direct’ (in that the referenced user affirmatively indicates their desire to park, e.g., in a particular location—e.g., by indicating, such as within a parking coordination application executing on device 102, that the user wishes to park at/close to a current location and/or a particular destination), in other implementations such requests can be generated based on various determinations that can be made, for example, based on various ‘implicit’ inputs or indications that may reflect that the user is likely to be looking for parking in the referenced location. For example, various motion inputs and/or patterns thereof (e.g., the user stopping with a greater degree of frequency, such as in the middle of the street, the user circling a block or traveling repeatedly around several blocks, reflecting that the user is likely looking for parking in such a location, etc.) can reflect that a user is likely to be looking for parking);
performing a second prediction regarding when the second user will arrive at the parking space (fig 3:340; par[0122], [0124], [0126, [0127], [0131]: At block 340, one or more parking requests (such as those received at 330) can be processed. In doing so, a degree of compatibility can be computed (e.g., in relation to a parking location at which a vehicle has been determined to be parked), such as between a parking request (such as a parking request received at 330) and a chronological interval (such as the chronological interval computed at 320). That is, having computed a chronological interval (such as is described at 320) that reflects a time interval within which a parking space at a particular location is likely to be vacated, and having received (e.g., at 330) a parking request with respect to another location, a degree of compatibility between the parking request (which may be in relation to one location) and the chronological interval (which may relate to a parking space in another location) can be computed.); and
dependent on the first prediction and the second prediction, directing the second user to the parking space (fig 3:370, 380; par[0130], [0131]: the user that is vacating the parking space to be notified with respect to various aspects of the requesting user, such as in order to better enable the requesting user to utilizing the parking space being vacated (e.g., in a scenario in which the vacating user can wait until the requesting user arrives to enable the requesting user to utilize the parking space). For example, in certain implementations such a notification (that is provided to the device associated with the vehicle that is vacating the parking space, e.g., vehicle 106A as shown in FIG. 4) can indicate a current location of the requesting device and/or an estimated arrival time of the second device to the parking space (based upon which, for example, the user that is vacating the space can decide whether or not to wait until the requesting user arrives). By way of further example, in certain implementations one or more identifying characteristics of the requesting vehicle (e.g., the make, model, color, etc., of the vehicle) can be provided in the referenced notification. In doing so, the user that is vacating the parking space can more easily identify the requesting user who wishes to utilize the space. In one aspect, block 380 is performed by parking coordination engine 130.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
1. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns in view of Zelensky et al. (US2021/0181331A1) hereafter Zelensky.
Regarding claim 3, Berns does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the performing of the first prediction comprises the detection of motion of a mobile device of the first user.
Zelensky discloses the method wherein the performing of the first prediction comprises the detection of motion of a mobile device of the first user (par[0034]: At block 202, the system may generate a motion profile of a vehicle based on motion data from a mobile device.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Zelensky references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the motion feature as disclosed by Zelensky to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of automatically triggering emergency alerts during falls or car crashes, unlocking secure doors seamlessly as you approach, continuously tracking motion anomalies to detect emergencies and optimizing power usage.
3. Claim(s) 5, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns in view of Lu et al. (US2020/0258386A1) hereafter Lu.
Regarding claim 5, Berns does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the performing of the first prediction comprises the detection of a payment transaction on a mobile device of the first user.
Lu discloses the method wherein the performing of the first prediction comprises the detection of a payment transaction on a mobile device of the first user (par[0075]: FIG. 2, the location application 103 includes: a communication module 202; a pattern module 204; a machine learning module 206; a navigation module 208; and a user interface module 210. ).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Lu references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the payment feature as disclosed by Lu to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing immediate fraud prevention, seamless expense tracking, and real-time account security.
Regarding claim 7, Berns does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the first prediction and/or second prediction is performed using machine learning.
Lu discloses the method wherein the first prediction and/or second prediction is performed using machine learning (par[0075], [0083], [0084]: FIG. 2, the location application 103 includes: a communication module 202; a pattern module 204; a machine learning module 206; a navigation module 208; and a user interface module 210. The machine learning module 206 can be software including routines for determining an available parking spot and estimating a length of time the available parking spot will remain available. The machine learning module 206 may be adapted for cooperation and communication with the processor 125 and other components of the computer system 200 via a signal line 226. In some embodiments, the machine learning module 206 is a component of the server 110. In some embodiments, the machine learning module 206 is a component of the ego vehicle 123).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Lu references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the machine learning feature as disclosed by Lu to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of scaling repetitive tasks, enhancing predictive accuracy, and continuous self-improvement over time.
Regarding claim 10, Berns does not explicitly disclose discloses the system wherein the central server comprises one or more machine learning modules.
Lu discloses the system wherein the central server comprises one or more machine learning modules (par[0075], [0083], [0084]: FIG. 2, the location application 103 includes: a communication module 202; a pattern module 204; a machine learning module 206; a navigation module 208; and a user interface module 210. The machine learning module 206 can be software including routines for determining an available parking spot and estimating a length of time the available parking spot will remain available. The machine learning module 206 may be adapted for cooperation and communication with the processor 125 and other components of the computer system 200 via a signal line 226. In some embodiments, the machine learning module 206 is a component of the server 110. In some embodiments, the machine learning module 206 is a component of the ego vehicle 123).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Lu references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the machine learning feature as disclosed by Lu to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of scaling repetitive tasks, enhancing predictive accuracy, and continuous self-improvement over time.
4. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns in view of LaVelle et al. (US2018/0025641A1) hereafter LaVelle.
Regarding claim 6, Berns does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the updating of the occupancy database is performed wirelessly.
LaVelle discloses the method wherein the updating of the occupancy database is performed wirelessly (par[0052]: Upon receiving the update from both driver client device 102.sub.i and sensor array 110p associated with the parking space and/or host client device 103.sub.j, backend management module 104 can be configured to update 409 (see e.g., FIG. 4) driver client database 106 (see e.g., FIG. 1) and host client database 107 of the location of driver client device 102.sub.i, the occupancy status of the parking space and the expected occupation duration. ).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the LaVelle references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the updating feature as disclosed by LaVelle to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of ensuring real-time data for better decisions, fixing security vulnerabilities to protect against breaches, and improving system performance, also allowing to adopt modern tech like artificial intelligence for ensuring compliance and efficiency.
5. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns in view of Guseynov et al. (US2019/0139410A1) hereafter Guseynov.
Regarding claim 8, Berns does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the performing of the second prediction comprises the use of navigational data.
Guseynov discloses the method wherein the performing of the second prediction comprises the use of navigational data (par[0075]: the parking management module 112 may calculate for each navigation user another form of probability, referred to herein as a parking-availability probability, associated with a likelihood that the respective navigation user will obtain the available parking space. The parking-availability probability may use a set of factors for calculating parking-availability probabilities for each navigation user, such as a distance from a current location of the navigation user to the location of the available parking place, an estimated time of arrival of the navigation to the available parking space, a number of other navigation users in the area around the available parking space, a number of other navigation users having a destination in the area near the available parking space.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Guseynov references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the navigating feature as disclosed by Guseynov to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing less traffic congestion, lower carbon emissions, reduced driver stress, and increased revenue for garage operators through optimized space turnover.
6. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns in view of Bandukwala (US2010/0302068A1).
Regarding claim 11, Berns does not explicitly disclose the system wherein the detection via the first mobile device comprises the use of a local mobile app.
Bandukwala discloses the system wherein the detection via the first mobile device comprises the use of a local mobile app (par[0034]: when the second user 30 parks his vehicle 60 in a parking space that the parking space community sharing system 50 had notified him about, the application component 52 running on the user's mobile communications device 34 sends a message to the server-based parking application component 54 to indicate that the space is no longer available. The message may be sent automatically by the application component 52 running on the user's mobile communications device 34 by detecting that the user's position matches the position of the indicated available parking space and that the vehicle has been parked, i.e., turned off. Alternatively, the message may be sent by the user by operating the mobile communications device 34. When the server-based parking application component 54 receives notification that the second user has parked in the parking space he had been notified about, the server-based parking application component 54 deletes the posting for the parking space on the log 68.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Bandukwala references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the mobile app feature as disclosed by Bandukwala to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing real-time updates on parking availability and direct you to the nearest spot or garage, routing drivers directly to available spaces, local apps decrease "cruising" for parking, which lowers local traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, offering safe, encrypted transactions and sending push notifications when your parking session is about to expire .
7. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berns in view of Salvucci et al. (US2019/0066505A1) hereafter Salvucci.
Regarding claim 12, Berns does not explicitly disclose the system wherein the indication via the second mobile device comprises the use of a local mobile app.
Salvucci discloses the system wherein the indication via the second mobile device comprises the use of a local mobile app (par[0032]: The system 100 may be further configured to receive information indicating that the user of the taken space has vacated that space, and may be configured to again update the dynamic database to reflect that the vacated space is again available, and may notify another user who is a member of the mobile application 320 and is looking for a space that a parking space has just become available. Each user who joins the mobile application may, as part of the “take a space, give a space” methodology, also agree to “save a space” for another user, for example, by remaining in the space a certain amount of time before vacating the parking space, so that another user of the mobile application 320 may take that space. Such methodology may be fulfilled by requiring the user to transmit, via the mobile application 320 or mobile device 300, a message indicating that the user is about to, or has just, vacated the parking space.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Salvucci references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the mobile app feature as disclosed by Salvucci to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing real-time updates on parking availability and direct you to the nearest spot or garage, routing drivers directly to available spaces, local apps decrease "cruising" for parking, which lowers local traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, offering safe, encrypted transactions and sending push notifications when your parking session is about to expire .
Regarding claim 13, Berns does not explicitly disclose the system wherein the central server is further operable to: push a notification to the first mobile device when the parking space has been occupied by the second user.
Salvucci discloses the system wherein the central server is further operable to:
push a notification to the first mobile device when the parking space has been occupied by the second user (par[0031], [0032]: The system 100 may further comprise, for example, on or associated with the server or servers 200, a dynamic database of available parking spaces within the relevant area, whether it be a city, town, community, parking facility, etc. When users use the mobile application 320 to find an available space, the system 100 may access the dynamic database to locate, and direct the user to an available space. The system 100 may further be configured to receive information that such space has been taken by the user, and may be configured to update the dynamic database to reflect that the space has been taken by the user, and is no longer available.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Berns and the Salvucci references since both pertain to the field of parking systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Berns with the notification feature as disclosed by Salvucci to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing real-time updates on parking availability and direct you to the nearest spot or garage, routing drivers directly to available spaces, local apps decrease "cruising" for parking, which lowers local traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, offering safe, encrypted transactions and sending push notifications when your parking session is about to expire .
Conclusion
US2022/0148427A1 to Emadi discloses a parking management platform enables an event-based vehicle parking service. Operational features afforded by the vehicle parking service include Waitlist AutoBuy, which automatically purchases a parking space if one becomes available before an event; Waitlist Notification, which notifies a user when a parking space becomes available; Cancel and Buy, which allows a user to cancel a purchased event parking pass before a pre-event deadline and later repurchase the same event parking pass; Transfer to Another Person, which allows transfer of a parking pass to another person; Transfer to Another Event, which allows transfer of an event parking pass for use at a future event; Redemption of Transferred Parking Pass, which allows a recipient of a transferred parking pass to redeem it without payment; and Attendance Confirmation, which allows a user to confirm attendance or to exchange, transfer, or cancel the event parking pass for a different event parking pass.
US10818179B1 to Kuas discloses a wireless transmission system includes a server to receive a unique identifier associated with a parking space from a first receiving device. The server then generate an instruction to query a type of the unique identifier and transmit the instruction to the database. The server in response to determining that a parking space is occupied by the first receiving device, generate an instruction to modify a record within the database associated with the parking space as occupied. The server receive a query from a second receiving device about the availability of parking spaces, and generate an instruction to receive one or more unoccupied parking spaces. The server generates a graphical user interface including a census data where the census data may include the occupied parking spaces, unoccupied parking spaces, and number of occupants within the automobile. The server transmit the graphical user interface to the second receiving device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE BENLAGSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5165. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-5165.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. 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.
/AMINE BENLAGSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights