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 .
Priority
The priority date for this application 11/07/2024.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2019/0049251).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Oesterling (US 2006/0173587).
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.
The claims of this application are not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The independent claim recites the limitation, “instruct a target vehicle to execute a plurality of types of actions in an order that is predetermined”. This limitation is being interpreted as representative of the system of the instant application exercising active control over the vehicle in question rather than a mere request, i.e. the instruction sent by the system represents a control signal that causes the actions to be performed by the vehicle. This interpretation is supported by Paragraph [0015] of the instant application where, for example, the reception of instructions directly cause the travel of a vehicle, and Paragraph [0023] where the in vehicle system executes a designated action directly in response to the instructions being received. Under this interpretation this limitation represents an additional element that integrates the abstract idea represented within the claim into a practical application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2019/0049251).
As per Claim 1:
Anderson discloses the following limitations:
“A management system that manages a vehicle in an area that is predetermined, the management system comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: instruct a target vehicle to execute a plurality of types of actions in an order that is predetermined”
Anderson Paragraph [0013] discloses instructing vehicles to emit a unique light pattern.
“recognize an action executed by the vehicle in the area that is predetermined by using a sensor installed in the area that is predetermined”
Anderson Paragraph [0013] discloses recognizing the unique light patterns emitted by vehicles in a given area.
“and identify the vehicle that has executed any one of the types of actions within a determination period after the instruction to the target vehicle, as the target vehicle.”
Anderson Paragraph [0013] discloses identifying vehicles based on the unique light pattern.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Oesterling (US 2006/0173587). These references are analogous as they are both related to control of vehicle actions.
With regards to Claim 2, Anderson discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitation the Oesterling teaches:
“the types of actions include a first action and a second action different from the first action; and the one or more processors are configured to instruct the target vehicle to execute the second action after the first action.”
Oesterling Paragraph [0080] teaches both sounding a horn and flashing lights in a parking lot to identify a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Anderson with the plurality of actions taught by Oesterling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the effectiveness of the invention by providing redundancy for the application.
With regards to Claim 3, Anderson in view of Oesterling teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein a first time needed to execute the first action is shorter than a second time needed to execute the second action.”
Oesterling Paragraph [0080] teaches sounding a horn and flashing lights, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the length of activation of these multiple actions are arbitrary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Anderson with the plurality of actions taught by Oesterling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the effectiveness of the invention by providing redundancy for the application.
With regards to Claim 4, Anderson in view of Oesterling teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein a first power consumption needed to execute the first action is lower than a second power consumption needed to execute the second action.”
Oesterling Paragraph [0080] teaches sound horns and flashing lights, power consumption of these two actions are arbitrarily determined by the intensity and duration of the actions and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that any arbitrary value can be selected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Anderson with the plurality of actions taught by Oesterling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the effectiveness of the invention by providing redundancy for the application.
With regards to Claim 5, Anderson in view of Oesterling teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein a change in vehicle size caused by the execution of the first action is smaller than a change in vehicle size caused by the execution of the second action.”
Oesterling Paragraph [0018] teaches opening the trunk of a vehicle thereby changing the apparent size of the vehicle when viewed from a certain perspective that is arbitrary in nature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Anderson with the plurality of actions taught by Oesterling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the effectiveness of the invention by providing redundancy for the application.
Related References
Hammes (US 2008/0158015)
Related to identification of a vehicle.
Kim (US 2009/0082962)
Related to locating vehicle trailers.
Co (US 2016/0082880)
Related to a vehicle locator system.
Thakur (US 2019/0007794)
Related to vehicle access control.
Nordbruch (US 10,532,771)
Related to a method of localizing a motor vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights