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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURE PARKING FACILITY ACCESS CONTROL.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the description lacks antecedent basis for the claim terms "authentication," “parking zone,” and “session identifier.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
"When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.... It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)." MPEP 2161.01(I). The subject matter of the claims below does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed system as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what Applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the particular manner in which these elements are structured and functions are performed. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm regarding these elements supports a finding that Applicant did not fully possess of these features at the time of filing.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite “the coded image contains information related to reservation of the vehicle.” While ¶ 0100 (of the published Specification) mentions a coded image that contains information related to reservation, this appears to be describing a coded image on the mobile device of the user (see Fig. 7), while the antecedent basis for “the coded image” in these claims is “a coded image displayed on a terminal associated with a hardware-based parking machine” from the independent claims.
Claims 7 and 14 recite “transmitting the third signal is performed in response to matching a first identifier associated with the first signal with a second identifier associated with the coded image.” The disclosure supports adding a pass in response to matching a first identifier associated with the first signal with a second identifier associated with the coded image in ¶¶ 0059 & 0082, but these passages do not mention transmitting the third signal in response to this match. The disclosure also supports raising a gate in response to matching identifiers, but these do not appear to be the same signals that have antecedent basis in the independent claims “in response to matching a unique identifier associated with the signals from wireless media device 810 and/or on-board vehicle device 835, gate 840 may raise and allow vehicle 830 to enter or exit” (¶ 0101) while the claims require that the second identifier is associated with the coded image). While this passage also supports sending a “verification confirmation message,” this is transmitted from the server rather than the mobile device as set forth in the independent claims. These also do not appear to be the same identifiers (“match the unique identifier sent from wireless media device 810 with one stored in the database” (¶ 0101)).
Claim 16 recites “the deep link is configured to initiate authentication of the user prior to launching the software application.” While a deep link that launches a software application is supported in ¶ 0060, there is no description of initiating authentication of the user prior to launching the software application via the deep link.
Claim 17 recites “an interface for selecting a parking zone or level within the parking facility.” Although a GUI is mentioned in ¶ 0100, the only relevant information displayed to the user is a “description may include information about the listing location, such as a number of a parking spot or level in a parking garage.” There is no mention of a “parking zone” and no description of selecting a parking zone or level within the parking facility.
Claim 20 recites “the third signal further includes a unique session identifier generated by the software application.” There is no description of a unique session identifier in the disclosure.
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 15-20 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 15 recites the limitation "the barrier mechanism." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grote, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0294286 (U.S. Pat. Pub. Citation 35 of the IDS filed 6/4/2025).
As per claim 1, Grote teaches a parking management system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions (¶ 0043; see also Fig 7—300) to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a wireless mobile device, a first signal from a short-range wireless communication device, the first signal including information identifying a parking facility (¶ 0034);
in response to receiving the first signal, automatically transmitting, by the wireless mobile device, a second signal confirming the wireless mobile device is within the geographic vicinity of the parking facility (¶ 0036);
scanning, using an image capturing component of the wireless mobile device, a coded image displayed on a terminal associated with a hardware-based parking machine (¶ 0065), wherein the coded image comprises a deep link (¶¶ 0066-67);
automatically launching a software application, based on the deep link, and wherein the software application conveys information relating to a location within the parking facility (¶ 0067); and
transmitting, by the wireless mobile device, a third signal including vehicle-related information, the third signal being generated by the launched software application and configured to trigger movement of a barrier mechanism of the parking facility (¶¶ 0043-45, 69-70).
As per claim 2, Grote teaches claim 1 as above. Grote further teaches the first signal including information identifying the parking facility comprises a unique identifier (¶ 0034).
As per claim 3, Grote teaches claim 1 as above. Grote further teaches the first signal is encoded or modulated (¶ 0034).
As per claim 4, Grote teaches claim 1 as above. Grote further teaches the coded image is dynamically generated with a unique identifier for the wireless mobile device (¶ 0034).
As per claim 6, Grote teaches claim 1 as above. Grote further teaches the coded image is one of a matrix barcode or a quick response (QR) code (¶ 0034).
As per claim 7, Grote teaches claim 1 as above. Grote further teaches transmitting the third signal is performed in response to matching a first identifier associated with the first signal with a second identifier associated with the coded image (¶¶ 0040-43).
As per claims 8-11 and 13-14, Grote teaches a method for managing access to a parking facility, the method comprising: steps performing the functionality of analogous claims 1-4 and 6-7 (see citations above).
As per claims 15 and 19, Grote teaches a parking management system comprising: a wireless mobile device comprising one or more processors and an image capturing component (¶ 0065); and wherein the one or more processors of the wireless mobile device are configured to: performing the functionality of analogous claims 1 and 4 (see citations above).
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.
Claims 5, 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote in view of Chia, et al., A Smart Parking and Reservation System for QR-Code-Based Car Park, Innovation in the High-Tech Economy, Contributions to Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pgs. 91-101 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892).
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Grote teaches claims 1, 8, and 15 as above. Grote does not explicitly teach the coded image contains information related to reservation of the vehicle; which is taught by Chia (§ 2.2). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Chia—namely, to streamline information transfer in the case where a parking space has been previously booked. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of parking. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 17, Grote teaches claim 15 as above. Grote does not explicitly teach the software application provides an interface for selecting a parking zone or level within the parking facility; which is taught by Chia (Fig. 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Chia—namely, so that the user can view specific availability in multiple portions of a parking facility and limit their selection to a certain area. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of parking. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote in view of Wang, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0167962 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 16, Grote teaches claim 15 as above. While Grote teaches the deep link causes launching of the software application (see claim 1 above), it does not explicitly teach to initiate authentication of the user prior to launching the software application; which is taught by Wang (¶ 0074). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Wang—namely, to further secure the application data. While not in the context of parking, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Wang’s application securing would have been applicable to Grote because both deal with applications that include payment information, that using Wang’s technique in Grote would provide more security to the user’s payment information, and that applying this technique would have yielded the predictable result of a parking application as in Grote that requires user verification in order to be launched.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote in view of Moshal, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0324777 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 20, Grote teaches claim 15 as above. While Grote teaches the deep link causes launching of the software application (see claim 1 above), it does not explicitly teach the third signal further includes a unique session identifier generated by the software application; which is taught by Moshal (¶¶ 0074-75). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Moshal—namely, to more quickly confirm parking records upon payment and exit. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of parking. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vossoughi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0250896 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to parking facility access control.
Jog, et al., Understanding smart and automated parking technology, International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2015, pgs. 251-262 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to parking facility access control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
