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
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 15-17 are 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12524751 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11636458. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 12 and 20 recited limitations are present in the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12524751 and 11636458.
Patent No. 12524751
Present Application: 19410877
Examiner’s Notes
Claim 1. A method comprising:
establishing, by an Internet of Things (IOT) device of a plurality of IOT devices within a computing system, a connection with a vehicle parked in a parking spot of a plurality of parking spots;
transmitting, by the IOT device, an IOT device identifier of the IOT device to the vehicle;
receiving, by the computing system from the vehicle, vehicle identification information and the IOT device identifier; and
validating, by the computing system, that the IOT device, to which the vehicle is connected, is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked based on the vehicle identification information, the IOT device identifier, and image data of the vehicle’s surroundings.
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system including a plurality of Internet of Things (IOT) devices and from a vehicle parked in a parking spot of a plurality of parking spots, data including vehicle identification information and an identifier of an IOT device of the plurality of IOT devices; and
validating, by the computing system, that the IOT device identified by the vehicle is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked based on the data and surroundings information associated with the vehicle.
This limitation is essentially the same
This limitation is essentially the same
Patent No. 11636458
Present Application: 19410877
Examiner’s Notes
Claim 1. A method comprising:
establishing, by a first Internet of Things (IOT) device of a plurality of IOT devices within a computing system, a connection with a vehicle parked in a parking spot of a plurality of parking spots; transmitting, by the first IOT device, a first IOT device identifier of the first IOT device to the vehicle;
receiving, by the computing system from the vehicle, an authentication token associated with a user of the vehicle, vehicle identification information, and the first IOT device identifier;
authenticating, by the computing system, the user of the vehicle based on the authentication token;
validating, by the computing system, that the first IOT device, to which the vehicle is connected, is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked based on the vehicle identification information, the first IOT device identifier, and image data of the vehicle's surroundings; and
responsive to determining that the first IOT device to which the vehicle is connected is not associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked, disconnecting, by the computing system, the first IOT device from the vehicle to enable the vehicle to reconnect to a second IOT device of the plurality of IOT devices.
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system including a plurality of Internet of Things (IOT) devices and from a vehicle parked in a parking spot of a plurality of parking spots, data including vehicle identification information and an identifier of an IOT device of the plurality of IOT devices; and
validating, by the computing system, that the IOT device identified by the vehicle is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked based on the data and surroundings information associated with the vehicle.
This limitation is essentially the same
This limitation is essentially the same
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-14 and 18-20 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.
In the instance case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-19 are directed to a computing system and claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to validating a vehicle location which is an abstract idea. Claims recite “receiving… from a vehicle…data…; validating…the vehicle…based on the data…” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of receiving multiple data and validating the receive data which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05).
Further, claims are directed to decision making by analyzing data which is an abstract idea and deals with mental process. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as computing system, IOT devices, vehicle, and computing device merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, computing system, IOT devices, vehicle, and computing device perform the steps of receiving multiple data and validating the receive data. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of computing system, IOT devices, vehicle, and computing device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of validating a vehicle location. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, computing system, IOT devices, vehicle, and computing device perform the steps of receiving multiple data and validating the receive data. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of validating a vehicle location. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further describe the abstract idea of validating a vehicle location. Specifically, claims 2 and 13 further describing transmitting of data which is part of the abstract idea, claim 3 and 14 further describing the transmitting of the data based on validating which is part of the abstract idea of validating a vehicle location. Claims 8-10 and 18-19 describing collecting and validating data which is part of the abstract idea. Claim 11 describing authentication based on a authentication token which is part of the abstract idea of validating a vehicle location. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9,12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carney Landow (US 10543809 ‘hereafter Carney).
With respect to claims 1, 12 and 20 Carney discloses: receiving, by a computing system including a plurality of Internet of Things (IOT) devices (i.e. parking sensors) and from a vehicle parked in a parking spot of a plurality of parking spots, data including vehicle identification information (i.e. vehicle identifier) and an identifier of an IOT device (i.e. sensor identifier) of the plurality of IOT devices (See column 5 lines14-65, column 6 lines 1-28 and column 11 lines 4-40); and validating, by the computing system, that the IOT device identified by the vehicle is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked based on the data and surroundings information (i.e. GPS coordinates) associated with the vehicle (See column 6 lines 1-28, column 9 lines 5-10 and column 11 lines 4-40).
With respect to claims 2 and 13 Carney discloses all the limitations above. Carney further discloses: establishing, by the IOT device, a connection with the vehicle parked in the parking spot; and transmitting, by the IOT device, the identifier of the IOT device to the vehicle (See column 5 lines14-65, column 6 lines 1-28).
With respect to claims 8 and 18 Carney discloses all the limitations above. Carney further discloses: collecting, by one or more sensors within the computing system, the surroundings information associated with the vehicle. (See column 11 lines 25-35).
With respect to claims 9 and 19 Carney discloses all the limitations above. Carney further discloses: receiving, by the computing system from the vehicle, the surroundings information associated with the vehicle along with the data including the vehicle identification information and the identifier of the IOT device. (See column 6 lines 1-28, column 9 lines 5-10 and column 11 lines 4-40).
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.
Claims 3, 11 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney Landow (US 10543809 ‘hereafter Carney) in view of Turnbull (US 20210272183).
With respect to claims 3 and 14 Carney discloses all the limitations as described above. Carney further discloses: validating that the IOT device identified by the vehicle is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked (See column 6 lines 1-28, column 9 lines 5-10 and column 11 lines 4-40). Carney does not explicitly disclose after validating connecting the vehicle to a computing device of a human representative within the computing system. Turnbull discloses: after validating connecting the vehicle to a computing device (i.e. service provider computing device) of a human representative within the computing system (See paragraphs 0021, 0030-0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Carney reference with the Turnbull reference in order to receive services (See Turnbull paragraph 0002).
With respect to claim 11 Carney discloses all the limitations as described above. Carney does not explicitly disclose: receiving, by the computing system, an authentication token associated with a user of the vehicle; and authenticating, by the computing system, the user of the vehicle based on the authentication token. Turnbull discloses: receiving, by the computing system, an authentication token associated with a user of the vehicle; and authenticating, by the computing system, the user of the vehicle based on the authentication token (See paragraphs 0035-0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Carney reference with the Turnbull reference in order to receive services (See Turnbull paragraph 0002).
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney Landow (US 10543809 ‘hereafter Carney) in view of Lee (US 20200394921).
With respect to claim 10 Carney discloses all the limitations as described above. Carney further discloses: comparing, by the computing system, the vehicle’s surroundings to data stored in memory of a first parking spot associated with the IOT device identified by the vehicle; and based on the vehicle’s surroundings matching the data stored in memory of the first parking spot associated with the IOT device, determining, by the computing system, that the IOT device is associated with the parking spot in which the vehicle is parked (See column 6 lines 1-28, column 9 lines 5-10 and column 11 lines 4-40). Carney does not explicitly disclose wherein the surroundings information comprises image data. Lee discloses: wherein the surroundings information comprises image data of the vehicle’s surrounding and comparing image data of the vehicle surrounding to image data stored on memory (See paragraph 0007-0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Carney reference with the Turnbull reference in order to easily find the location of a vehicle by identifying the parking location using surrounding images (See Lee paragraph 0006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights