DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. This application, filed May 30, 2025, is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/104210, filed June 29, 2023. Pursuant to a pre-examination amendment, filed September 9, 2025, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. The applicant has amended claims 4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 19 is 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.
In particular, Claim 19 is recites the limitation, “the sum.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15, from which claim 19 depends, does not recite, “a sum.”
In particular, Claim 19 is recites the limitation, “the traveling distance.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15, from which claim 19 depends, does not recite, “a traveling distance.”
In particular, Claim 19 is recites the limitation, “the walking distance.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15, from which claim 19 depends, does not recite, “a walking distance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining a travelling route of a vehicle to a vacant parking space in a parking lot and controlling the vehicle to park in that parking space, all of which could be performed by a human mind and a human vehicle operator controlled by a human mind, which indicates that the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 recites only one other element, automated valet parking, but the claim recites this element only in the preamble. The body of the claim does not mention automated parking, so this element is not a limitation. Moreover, claim 1 recites automated valet parking at a high level of generality, so that the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a generic automated parking system. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of automated parking amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic automated parking system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic automated parking system cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-14 depend from claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining a travelling route of a vehicle to a vacant parking space in a parking lot and controlling the vehicle to park in that parking space, all of which could be performed by a human mind and a human vehicle operator controlled by a human mind, which indicates that the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 20 recites only three other elements, a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processors, but the claim recites these element only in the preamble. The body of the claim does not mention a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processors, so these elements are not limitations. Moreover, claim 20 recites a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processors, so that the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a generic non-transitory storage medium storing a generic program that is executable by one or more generic processors. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic non-transitory storage medium storing a generic program that is executable by one or more generic processors. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic a generic non-transitory storage medium storing a generic program that is executable by one or more generic processors cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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)(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.
8. Claims 1-3, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0363244 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
a method for automated valet parking in a parking lot ([0002], [0086]), comprising:
obtaining a first traveling route of a target vehicle from a first location to a first parking space in the parking lot, wherein the first parking space is a vacant parking space ([0041]); and
controlling, based on the first traveling route, the target vehicle to park from the first location into the first parking space ([0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses obtaining an image captured by a camera deployed in the parking lot; and determining the first location based on a location of the camera in the parking lot and a location of the target vehicle in the image. ([0064], [0066], [0067])
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that a traveling distance of the first traveling route is a minimum traveling distance from the first location to the first parking space. ([0052], [0078])
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses:
an apparatus ([0041]; FIG. 4: 120), wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least one processor ([0046]; FIG. 2: 113;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program ([0084]; FIG. 7: 1300) to be executed by the at least one processor ([0084]; FIG. 7: 1100), the program including instructions to:
obtain a first traveling route of a target vehicle from a first location to a first parking space in the parking lot, wherein the first parking space is a vacant parking space ([0041]); and
control, based on the first traveling route, the target vehicle to park from the first location into the first parking space ([0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses that the instructions further include instructions to: obtain an image captured by a camera deployed in the parking lot; and determine the first location based on a location of the camera in the parking lot and a location of the target vehicle in the image. ([0064], [0066], [0067])
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses that a traveling distance of the first traveling route is a minimum traveling distance from the first location to the first parking space. ([0052], [0078])
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processors, the program including instructions for performing steps ([0084]; FIG. 7: 1100, 1300); otherwise, claim 20 is rejected as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Matsushita (US 2021/0197800 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee does not disclose obtaining a first duration in which the target vehicle travels from the first location to the first parking space along the first traveling route; and outputting the first duration to the user.
Matsushita, addressing the same problem of how to measure the time for a vehicle to travel to a parking space, teaches an in-vehicle processing apparatus and an in-vehicle processing system ([0002]), comprising obtaining a first duration in which the target vehicle travels from the first location to the first parking space along the first traveling route; and outputting the first duration to the user ([0083]) for the benefit that the user can grasp a sense of a distance of the traveling route from the drop-off position to the parking space, based on the traveling distance and the traveling duration ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Matsushita with the method of Lee because that would have enabled the user to grasp a sense of a distance of the traveling route from the drop-off position to the parking space, based on the traveling distance and the traveling duration.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Perez Barrera et al. (US 2020/0062243 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee does not explicitly disclose that the method further comprises: obtaining a second traveling route from the first parking space to a first exit of the parking lot; and controlling, based on the second traveling route, the vehicle to travel from the first parking space to the first exit.
Perez Barrera, addressing the same problem of how to arrange a vehicle’s exit from a parking space, teaches implementation of autonomous vehicles ([0001]), comprising obtaining a second traveling route from the first parking space to a first exit of the parking lot ([0033]); and controlling, based on the second traveling route, the vehicle to travel from the first parking space to the first exit ([0065]) for the benefit of enabling the vehicle to exit the parking facility ([0004], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Perez Barrera with the method of Lee because that would have enabled the method to enable a vehicle to exit a parking facility.
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Perez Barrera further in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 2023/0141416 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee does not disclose obtaining a second duration in which the vehicle travels from the first parking space to the first exit along the second traveling route; and outputting the second duration to the user.
Kulkarni, addressing the same problem of determining the exit time from a parking space, teaches systems for tracking traffic flow within a parking structure ([0001]), comprising obtaining a second duration in which the vehicle travels from the first parking space to the first exit along the second traveling route ([0030]); and outputting the second duration to the user ([0051]; Kulkarni discloses outputting departure time, which suggest that it would be obvious to output the egress time to enable a user to plan her schedule based on the exit time starting from the departure time) for the benefit of improving traffic management within and/or around a parking structure ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Kulkarni with the method of Lee because that would have enabled the method to improve traffic management within and/or around a parking structure.
13. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2021/0402985 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee does not disclose determining that traffic efficiency of the parking lot is greater than or equal to a traffic efficiency threshold.
Matsuda, addressing the same problem of how to promote traffic efficiency in a parking lot, teaches a vehicle control device mounted on an automobile to perform parking control ([0001]), comprising determining that traffic efficiency of the parking lot is greater than or equal to a traffic efficiency threshold ([0094]) for the benefit that the occupant can select either the original parking route or the new parking route by using the parking efficiency as an index, and the discomfort of the occupant during parking control can be further reduced ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Matsuda with the method of Lee because that would have enabled the method to enable the occupant to select either the original parking route or the new parking route by using the parking efficiency as an index, and the discomfort of the occupant during parking control can be further reduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 4 because claim 5 depends from claim 4.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 7 because claim 8 depends from claim 7.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights