DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 20 May 2025.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in Figs 3a-3b, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 20-21 are too small and/or blurry. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 3 and 12, “setting” should be “settling”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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, 9-10 and 18 contains the trademark/trade name QR code. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a 2D barcode with a QR code standard developed by Denso Wave and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Examiner will interpret the phrase “QR code” to recite “2D barcode” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recite the phrase “a server” in step (a). It is unclear if this server is the same as the “a server” recited in the preamble or is a new server. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the server” for purposes of examination.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the phrase “…recognizing a type of the identified vehicle (compact car and commercial vehicle),”. The parenthetical "(compact car and commercial vehicle)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in the parenthetical are part of the claimed invention and/or if they are merely examples. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner will ignore the parenthetical for purposes of examination.
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method and server for Providing Parking System Using QR Code and Proxy Payment. These are a process and machine which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1 and 10:
Claim 1:
“…identifying stored location information related to the parking area identification information…”
“(c) providing a proxy payment …according to request of the user terminal;”
“(d) identifying… the proxy payment…, inputting proxy payment amount and performing proxy payment.”
Claim 10:
“(c) receiving, …, a payment amount to be paid…, inputting proxy payment amount and performing the proxy payment; and”
“(d) checking, …, the updated payment amount …and paying the remaining amount.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server”, “a memory configured to store a program regarding a method of providing the proxy payment;”, “a processor configured to execute the program”, or various terminals nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity or Behavior is described when processing parking information and paying a parking fee. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“(a) transmitting parking area identification information from a user terminal to a server through capturing of a QR code installed to a parking area;”
“(b) completing an entry by storing an entry time and the parking area identification information in the server when the user terminal transmits phone number, license plate number and payment means information to the server, …and transmitting an entry completion guidance message to the user terminal;”
“…QR code to the user terminal…”
“…for a proxy payer terminal… QR code from the user terminal”
Claim 10:
“a memory configured to store a program regarding a method of providing the proxy payment; and”
“a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the method includes:”
“(a) providing a QR code for the proxy payment according to request of a beneficiary terminal;”
“(b) recognizing the QR code from the beneficiary terminal through a proxy payer terminal;”
“…by the proxy payer terminal… from the server…”
“…by the beneficiary terminal… from the server…”
The computer components (user terminal, payer terminal, beneficiary terminal, server, memory and processor) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic terminals, a generic server, generic storage, and a generic processor) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The transmitting, storing and providing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally transmitting, generally storing, and generally providing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of QR codes and QR code processing is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 1:
“(a) transmitting parking area identification information from a user terminal to a server through capturing of a QR code installed to a parking area;”
“(b) completing an entry by storing an entry time and the parking area identification information in the server when the user terminal transmits phone number, license plate number and payment means information to the server, …and transmitting an entry completion guidance message to the user terminal;”
“…QR code to the user terminal…”
“…for a proxy payer terminal… QR code from the user terminal”
Claim 10:
“a memory configured to store a program regarding a method of providing the proxy payment; and”
“a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the method includes:”
“(a) providing a QR code for the proxy payment according to request of a beneficiary terminal;”
“(b) recognizing the QR code from the beneficiary terminal through a proxy payer terminal;”
“…by the proxy payer terminal… from the server…”
“…by the beneficiary terminal… from the server…”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for transmitting/providing various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-8 and 11-17 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 further recite the usage of cameras. The use of cameras is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Dependent Claims 6 and 15 further recite the usage of machine learning. The use of machine learning is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Dependent Claims 9 and 18 recite the usage of QR code printing technologies. The use of QR code printing technologies is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claims 5 and 14:
“…based on cameras installed around on-street parking lots, indoor parking lots and resident parking areas;…”
Claims 6 and 15:
“…learning…”
Claims 7 and 16:
“…from a camera of a parking lot…”
Claims 9 and 18:
“…wherein the QR code installed in the parking area is formed with a QR code plate, and wherein the QR code plate includes a flooring plate, a notification layer on which a QR image is formed through a laser method of printing directly on the flooring plate, a LED method or an inkjet method; and a protection layer for protecting the notification layer on the notification layer.”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The dependent claims contain no elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 10
A server for providing proxy payment for a parking fee comprising: (Lim discloses a server. See at least page 2.)
a memory configured to store a program regarding a method of providing the proxy payment; and (Lim discloses a server (i.e. memory and processor with program). See at least page 2.)
a processor configured to execute the program, (Lim discloses a server (i.e. memory and processor with program). See at least page 2.)
wherein the method includes:
(a) providing a QR code for the proxy payment according to request of a beneficiary terminal; (Lim discloses a passenger smart phone may scan QR code, pay for parking fees and check parking position. See at least page 5.)
(b) recognizing the QR code from the beneficiary terminal through a proxy payer terminal; (Lim discloses a passenger smart phone may scan QR code, pay for parking fees and check parking position. See at least page 5.)
(c) receiving, by the proxy payer terminal, a payment amount to be paid from the server, inputting proxy payment amount and performing the proxy payment; and (Lim discloses a passenger smart phone may scan QR code, pay for parking fees and check parking position. See at least page 5. Lim discloses user entering vehicle number (i.e. plate number) and paying for parking (i.e. payment means information). See at least page 2.)
(c) receiving, by the proxy payer terminal, a payment amount to be paid from the server, inputting proxy payment amount and performing the proxy payment; and (Lim discloses a passenger smart phone may scan QR code, pay for parking fees and check parking position. See at least page 5. Lim discloses user entering vehicle number (i.e. plate number) and paying for parking (i.e. payment means information). See at least page 2.)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) in view of Kim (KR 102084134 B1 hereinafter Kim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 1
A method of providing a parking system and proxy payment using a QR code executed by a server, the method comprising: (Lim discloses a server. See at least page 2.)
(a) transmitting parking area identification information from a user terminal to a server through capturing of a QR code installed to a parking area; (Lim discloses driver scanning QR code wherein the QR code communicates parking information to the server including parking number, floor, and zone. See at least page 3.)
(b) completing an entry by storing an entry time and the parking area identification information in the server when the user terminal transmits phone number, license plate number and payment means information to the server, identifying stored location information related to the parking area identification information and transmitting an entry completion guidance message to the user terminal; (Lim discloses driver scanning QR code wherein the QR code communicates parking information to the server including parking number, floor, and zone. See at least page 3. Lim discloses user entering vehicle number (i.e. plate number) and paying for parking (i.e. payment means information). See at least page 2. Lim does not disclose storing entry time along with parking information.)
(c) providing a proxy payment QR code to the user terminal according to request of the user terminal; and (Lim discloses a passenger smart phone may pay for parking fees and check parking position. See at least page 5.)
(d) identifying for a proxy payer terminal the proxy payment QR code from the user terminal, inputting proxy payment amount and performing proxy payment. (Lim discloses a passenger smart phone may pay for parking fees and check parking position. See at least page 5.)
Lim does not disclose storing entry time along with parking information. Kim teaches storing entry time and a driver’s phone number alongside with parking information including discount tickets in a server database and sending a confirmation message (i.e. completion message) to the user. See at least pages 7-9.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to store the parking information of Lim in a server alongside entry time, discounts, phone number, and sending a confirmation message as taught by Kim because doing so is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) in view of Kim (KR 102084134 B1 hereinafter Kim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) further in view of Omata (JP 2006236168 A hereinafter Omata; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of (d) includes:
providing difference between the proxy payment amount and payment amount to a service provider when multiple proxy payer terminals perform the proxy payment and the proxy payment amount exceeds the payment amount. (Lim and Kim do not disclose refunding parking discounts.)
Lim and Kim do not disclose refunding parking discounts. Omata teaches paid parking fees from shops wherein the paid parking fee is greater than the parking fee and the balance is distributed to each operating entity based on user spending (i.e. based on the refund). See at least pages 9 and 13.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include refunding discounts in the manner taught by Omata in the system of Lin/Kim because Omata additionally teaches the motivation that this allows for managing of parking fees and discount tickets where stores and sales offices gather on a large scale. See at least page 2.
Also, including refunding discounts in the manner taught by Omata in the system of Lin/Kim is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein the difference between the proxy payment amount and the payment amount is divided by the number of proxy payer terminals that performed the proxy payment and the resulting amount is refunded when setting based on the same refund amount standard. (See the combination with Omata as shown above in Claim 2.)
Claim 4
The method of claim 2, wherein the difference between the proxy payment amount and the payment amount is refunded to the proxy payer terminals in proportion to the payment ratio of each proxy payer terminal relative to the proxy payment amount when setting to refund based on ratio of the proxy payment amount. (See the combination with Omata as shown above in Claim 2.)
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) further in view of Omata (JP 2006236168 A hereinafter Omata; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 11
The server of claim 10, wherein the step of (d) includes:
providing difference between the proxy payment amount and the payment amount to a service provider when multiple proxy payer terminals perform the proxy payment and the proxy payment amount exceeds the payment amount. (See the combination with Omata as shown above in Claim 2.)
Claim 12
The server of claim 11, wherein the difference between the proxy payment amount and the payment amount is divided by the number of proxy payer terminals that performed the proxy payment and the resulting amount is refunded when setting based on the same refund amount standard. (See the combination with Omata as shown above in Claim 2.)
Claim 13
The server of claim 11, wherein the difference between the proxy payment amount and the payment amount is refunded to the proxy payer terminals in proportion to the payment ratio of each proxy payer terminal relative to the proxy payment amount when setting to refund based on ratio of the proxy payment amount. (See the combination with Omata as shown above in Claim 2.)
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) in view of Kim (KR 102084134 B1 hereinafter Kim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) further in view of Kim (KR 102459934 B1 hereinafter Kim2; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
pre-storing, in the server, information on parking fee discount-eligible persons, including persons of national merit, persons with disabilities, parents of multiple children, and persons eligible for veteran benefits, as well as the license plate numbers of those eligible vehicles; and (Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 6.)
identifying a vehicle in an image captured by a camera and generating an image learning model for recognizing a type of the identified vehicle (compact car and commercial vehicle), (Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 6.)
and wherein the step of pre-storing and the step of identifying are performed before the step of (a). (Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 6.)
Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 6. Kim2 teaches capturing images by a camera unit recognizing a vehicle entering and exiting a parking space, the license number associated with that plate, and matching that plate with authentication data stored in a control server so as to determine the vehicle, and further determining the vehicle is associated with national administration and home affairs server (i.e. equivalent in function to the claimed benefits) such that a settlement module can perform parking settlement to which fee discounts are applied for eco-friendly vehicles, disabled and aged people , and electric vehicles. See at least page 7.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the discounts provided in Kim2 in the system of Lim because doing so is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7
The method of claim 6, further comprising
identifying vehicle information from an image transmitted from a camera of a parking lot, calculating automatically discount information regarding corresponding vehicle and paying automatically a parking fee to which discount is applied based on the calculating, after the step of (b). (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
Claim 8
The method of claim 7, wherein the calculating includes:
(p-1) applying at least one of electric vehicle discount, compact car discount, commercial vehicle discount, veteran discount, disability discount, and multiple-child parent discount based on one or more of the information about the fee discount objects stored in the server, the information concerning the kind of vehicle recognized through the image of the camera and color of a license plate recognized by the camera. (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) further in view of Kim (KR 102459934 B1 hereinafter Kim2; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 15
The server of claim 10, further comprising:
pre-storing, in the server, information on parking fee discount-eligible persons, including persons of national merit, persons with disabilities, parents of multiple children, and persons eligible for veteran benefits, as well as the license plate numbers of those eligible vehicles; and (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
identifying a vehicle in an image captured by a camera and generating an image learning model for recognizing a type of the identified vehicle (compact car and commercial vehicle), and (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
wherein the step of pre-storing and the step of identifying are performed before the step of (a). (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
Claim 16
The server of claim 15, further comprising:
identifying vehicle information from an image transmitted from a camera of a parking lot, calculating automatically discount information regarding corresponding vehicle and paying automatically a parking fee to which discount is applied based on the calculating, after the step of (b). (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
Claim 17
The server of claim 16, wherein the calculating includes:
(p-1) applying at least one of electric vehicle discount, compact car discount, commercial vehicle discount, veteran discount, disability discount, and multiple-child parent discount based on one or more of the information about the fee discount objects stored in the server, the information concerning the kind of vehicle recognized through the image of the camera and color of the license plate recognized by the camera. (See the combination with Kim2 as shown above in Claim 6.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) in view of Kim (KR 102084134 B1 hereinafter Kim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) further in view of Murai et al. (JP 2009241966 A hereinafter Murai; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the QR code installed in the parking area is formed with a QR code plate, (Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 9.)
and wherein the QR code plate includes a flooring plate, a notification layer on which a QR image is formed through a laser method of printing directly on the flooring plate, a LED method or an inkjet method; and a protection layer for protecting the notification layer on the notification layer. (Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 9.)
Lim does not disclose the features of Claim 9. Murai teaches printing parking barcodes on a flat plate layer, a barcode layer printed with ink, and covered with protective vinyl or acrylic to make it durable and climate resistant. See at least page 4.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the printing methods of Murai for the QR codes of Lim because Murai additionally teaches the motivation that such a barcode can be read by a mobile phone with a camera function while standing and the owner can easily monitor the image of the section of the parking lot monitoring system. See at least page 4.
Also, using the printing methods of Murai for the QR codes of Lim is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20200006464 A hereinafter Lim; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation) further in view of Murai et al. (JP 2009241966 A hereinafter Murai; cited page numbers are those of the English machine translation).
Claim 18
The server of claim 10, wherein the QR code installed in the parking area is formed with a QR code plate, and wherein the QR code plate includes a flooring plate, a notification layer on which a QR image is formed through a laser method of printing directly on the flooring plate, a LED method or an inkjet method; and a protection layer for protecting the notification layer on the notification layer (See the combination with Murai as shown above in Claim 9.)
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that a search was performed but did not result in an art rejection for Claims 5 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2025/0086681 A1) discloses QR code scanned parking cards.
Wu (“A QR Code-Based on-Street Parking Fee Payment Mechanism”) discloses parking fee payment structure using QR codes for on-street parking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights