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 Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed October 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on German Patent Application No. DE102022106127.2, filed March 16, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of record have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The new features amended into the independent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application as they merely expand on the previously stated abstract idea and merely amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea without significantly more as described in more detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A detailed and updated rejection follows below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), for assisting a user in finding a vacant parking spot at or near a destination. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A parking assistance method for a drive with a motor vehicle, comprising:
by a parking assistance device comprising a processor and a memory:
determining a navigation destination of the drive of the motor vehicle by querying a navigation device in communication with the parking assistance device;
receiving, via wireless data communication, occupancy state data from at least one data source external to the motor vehicle, wherein the at least one data source external to the motor vehicle includes another motor vehicle, and wherein the occupancy state data includes information of an availability of free parking spaces for a preset perimeter around the navigation destination;
ascertaining at least one location of a free parking space based on the received occupancy state data;
examining whether the navigation destination satisfies a preset favoring criterion, which presets a minimum probability of a driver-specific favoring and/or frequency, with which a driver of the motor vehicle drives to the navigation destination;
learning, by artificial intelligence, a data quality of the occupancy state data:
in response to whether the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion, predetermining an information content for parking space data for the drive based on the data quality of the occupancy state;
providing parking space data with the predetermined information content, which describes a proposal to the ascertained location of the free parking space related to the navigation destination, the predetermined information content based on the preset favoring criterion and an accuracy of the occupancy data, the predetermined information content ranging from a general occupancy state of the parking space data to a free parking space and route information; and
transferring the provided parking space data to an output device to output the provided parking space data.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, a driver of a car is able to mentally determine a destination (i.e. they are going to work) and check a system related to the parking area that displays parking space availability (i.e. an application or website which displays vacant parking spaces for a selected parking area) along with being able to verify the quality or trustworthiness of the data that they are seeing in order to make a mental determination as to whether or not said parking area has vacant spaces available. The driver is also able to mentally determine whether the vacant spaces fit their personal preferences based on the location of the vacant space (i.e. covered vs. non-covered spot, close to entrance, handicap spot, etc.). Finally, if there are available spaces and the driver determines that said spaces fit within their preferences, the driver may mentally propose to themselves and initiate travel to said parking area and park in the previously seen vacant space. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements displayed underlined below:
A parking assistance method for a drive with a motor vehicle, comprising:
by a parking assistance device comprising a processor and a memory:
determining a navigation destination of the drive of the motor vehicle by querying a navigation device in communication with the parking assistance device;
receiving, via wireless data communication, occupancy state data from at least one data source external to the motor vehicle, wherein the at least one data source external to the motor vehicle includes another motor vehicle, and wherein the occupancy state data includes information of an availability of free parking spaces for a preset perimeter around the navigation destination;
ascertaining at least one location of a free parking space based on the received occupancy state data;
examining whether the navigation destination satisfies a preset favoring criterion, which presets a minimum probability of a driver-specific favoring and/or frequency, with which a driver of the motor vehicle drives to the navigation destination;
learning, by artificial intelligence, a data quality of the occupancy state data:
in response to whether the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion, predetermining an information content for parking space data for the drive based on the data quality of the occupancy state;
providing parking space data with the predetermined information content, which describes a proposal to the ascertained location of the free parking space related to the navigation destination, the predetermined information content based on the preset favoring criterion and an accuracy of the occupancy data, the predetermined information content ranging from a general occupancy state of the parking space data to a free parking space and route information; and transferring the provided parking space data to an output device to output the provided parking space data.
The characterization of the parking assistance method being used for a drive with a motor vehicle amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The functions of the parking assistance device comprising a processor, a memory, and an artificial intelligence system, is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The receiving of data by querying a navigation device in communication with the parking assistance device and via wireless data communication merely amounts to pre-solution activity (a form of extra-solution data gathering).
The process of transferring the provided parking space data merely amounts to post-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, 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.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of parking assistance device comprising a processor, a memory, and an artificial intelligence system, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the additional element of receiving data by querying a navigation device in communication with the parking assistance device and via wireless data communication, is extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, the characterization of the parking assistance method for a drive with a motor vehicle amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the process of transferring the provided parking space data, when recited at this level of breadth merely acts to transmit information between devices, which amounts to extra-solution (post-solution) activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). In addition, the specification (see pages 8-9) demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 16 and 20 comparable to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2-13 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, for the
reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated
into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14-15, and 17-19 further recite a parking assistance device, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile terminal, and a server device configured to execute the process outlined in Claim 1. The limitations of the claims attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in combination, 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.
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.
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 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. (US 10066954; hereinafter Swanson, already of record), in view of Scofield (US 20160358473, already of record), and further in view of Beaurepaire et al. (US 20200160712; hereinafter Beaurepaire).
Regarding Claim 1,
Swanson teaches
A parking assistance method for a drive with a motor vehicle, (Swanson: Abstract) comprising:
by a parking assistance device comprising a processor and a memory: (Swanson: Column 1, Line 36-44; “...a computing device for navigating a vehicle to a parking space comprises a processor, a location determining device, an output device and a memory device.”)
determining a navigation destination of the drive of the motor vehicle (Swanson: Column 1, Line 36-44; “The memory device encodes instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the computing device to determine a destination, determine a best available parking space, and route the vehicle to the best available parking space.”) by querying a navigation device in communication with the parking assistance device; (Swanson: Column 3, Line 36-57, FIG. 1; The user inputs a desired destination (i.e. querying the system) which then generates a route from the current location to the destination and also recommends available parking spaces in the area.)
receiving, via a wireless data communication, (Swanson: Column 4, Line 58-64, FIG. 2; “FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of a computing device 102. In this embodiment, the media-playback device 102 includes... a network access device 204...” and Column 5, Line 40-49; “The network access device 204 operates to communicate with other computing devices over one or more networks, such as the network 106.”) occupancy state data from at least one data source external to the motor vehicle, (Swanson: Column 1, Line 49-56) wherein the at least one data source external to the motor vehicle includes another motor vehicle, (Swanson: Column 10, Line 54-61; Traffic data gathered from other vehicles, traffic data used to find trends in parking, i.e. occupancy data in certain parking locations.; Column 15, Line 54 – Column 16, Line 5) and wherein the occupancy state data includes information of an availability of free parking spaces for a preset perimeter around the navigation destination; (Swanson: Column 1, Line 63 – Column 2, Line 3)
ascertaining at least one location of a free parking space based on the received occupancy state data; (Swanson: Column 10, Line 15-24; “The parking suggestions service 348 also communicates with the parking data source 356 and the traffic data source 358 to determine which parking areas having vacant spaces available.”)
examining whether the navigation destination satisfies a preset favoring criterion, which presets a minimum probability of a driver-specific favoring and/or frequency, with which a driver of the motor vehicle drives to the navigation destination; (Swanson: Column 4, Line 28-37; “In some embodiments, the computing device 102 learns a user's preferred parking area near a particular destination, such as a preferred parking lot near the user's workplace, and can determine if the user's preferred parking area has available spaces.”)
...
providing the parking space data with the predetermined information content, which describes a proposal to the ascertained location of the free parking space related to the navigation destination; (Swanson: Column 13, Line 57-62; “...the ranked parking areas are displayed for a user, for example, on a display of a computing device such as the computing device 102 of FIG. 1. In such embodiments, the user can select which parking area to navigate to, even if the parking area is not the top ranked parking area.”) ... the predetermined information content ranging from a general occupancy state of the parking space data to a free parking space and route information; (Swanson: Column 1, Line 28-35; Column 6, Line 42-46) and
transferring the provided parking space data to an output device to output the provided parking space data. (Swanson: Column 13, Line 57-62; “...the ranked parking areas are displayed for a user, for example, on a display of a computing device such as the computing device 102 of FIG. 1. In such embodiments, the user can select which parking area to navigate to, even if the parking area is not the top ranked parking area.”)
Swanson does not teach
...
learning, by artificial intelligence, a data quality of the occupancy state data;
in response to whether the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion, predetermining an information content for parking space data for the drive based on the data quality of the of the occupancy state data;
...the predetermined information content based on the preset favoring criterion and an accuracy of the occupancy data,...
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Scofield teaches
...
...the predetermined information content based on the preset favoring criterion and an accuracy of the occupancy data,... (Scofield: Paragraph [0018], [0030]-[0031]; Examiner note: The accuracy is taught by the likelihood that a space is available, which is consistent with the characterization of “accuracy” in paragraphs [0071]-[0077] of the specification.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parking assistance of Swanson with the occupancy data accuracy of Scofield for the benefit of saving a user time and fuel when searching for a parking spot. (Scofield: Paragraph [0001])
Swanson, in view of Scofield does not teach
...
learning, by artificial intelligence, a data quality of the occupancy state data;
in response to whether the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion, predetermining an information content for parking space data for the drive based on the data quality of the of the occupancy state data;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Beaurepaire teaches
...
learning, by artificial intelligence, a data quality of the occupancy state data; (Tang: Paragraph [0027]; “...a machine learning model may take as inputs image streams and provide as outputs patterns, objects, spaces, or other features of the image streams. In one use case, the outputs may be fed back to the machine learning model as input to train the machine learning model (e.g., alone or in conjunction with user indications of the accuracy of the outputs, labels associated with the inputs, or with other reference feedback information).”) (Beaurepaire: Paragraph [0032]; “For example, sensor data from a plurality of data probes, which may be, for example, vehicles traveling along a road network or within a venue, may be gathered and fused to infer an accurate map of an environment in which the data probes are moving. Such sensor data may be updated in real time such as on an hourly basis, to provide accurate and up to date map data.” [0047]; Index of likelihood of finding parking)
in response to whether the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion, predetermining an information content for parking space data for the drive based on the data quality of the of the occupancy state data; (Beaurepaire: Paragraph [0042]-[0043];the preset favoring criterion is parking with the area of the intended destination of the user.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parking assistance system of Swanson, in view of Scofield, with the artificial intelligence learning and data quality considerations of Beaurepaire for the benefit of easing the problems of congestion and lengthy search time in procuring suitable parking spaces. (Beaurepaire: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 2,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The parking assistance method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined information content presets a data content and/or an amount of data of the parking space data. (Swanson: Column 9, Line 58-63)
Regarding Claim 3,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The parking assistance method according to claim 1, wherein by the parking assistance device:
when the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion, setting an amount of data in a first preset range of values as the information content; (Swanson: Column 4, Line 27-37) and/or, when the navigation destination does not satisfy the preset favoring criterion, setting an amount of data in a second preset range of values as the amount of data, which sets a higher amount of data compared to the first preset range of values. (Swanson: Column 4, Line 37-43)
Regarding Claim 4, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The parking assistance method according to claim 3, wherein by the parking assistance device, when the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion:
examining whether the received occupancy state data falls below a preset expectable minimum level of an availability of free parking spaces, (Swanson: Column 12, Line 18-30; “At operation 506, it is determined which parking areas have vacant parking spaces. ...user preferences may require that two or more vacant parking spaces must be vacant in order for a parking area to be considered to have available spaces.”) and
upon falling below the preset minimum level, setting the amount of data of the second preset range of values as the amount of data. (Swanson: Column 11, Line 39-48; “...the parking report or recommendation is only provided if the user's usual preferred parking area does not have vacant spaces and the user needs recommendations for an alternative place to park.”)
Regarding Claim 6, the claim is analogous to Claim 5 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 11,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The parking assistance method according to claim 1, wherein by the parking assistance device:
receiving driver behavior data, which describes a driver-specific preference with respect to a parking space location within the preset perimeter and/or a driver-specific local knowledge, (Swanson: Column 11, Line 36-38; “...the navigation service 342 accesses the user's calendar to determine where the user is travelling based on the date and time.”) and
setting a data content of the provided parking space data based on the driver-specific preference. (Swanson: Column 11, Line 39-48; “...the computing device 102 will automatically provide a parking suggestion for the user's destination and/or begin navigating to a parking area.”)
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is analogous to Claim 11 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The parking assistance method according to claim 1, wherein by the parking assistance device,
predetermining the information content for the parking space data depending on a data quality of the occupancy state data, (Swanson: Column 12, Line 26-30) comprising ascertaining the data quality of the occupancy state data depending on:
a number of data sources external to the motor vehicle, from which the parking assistance device receives occupancy state data, and/or how significant the information to a free parking space is; (Swanson: Column 12, Line 35-51; “...vacant parking spaces are determined in controlled parking facilities by accessing data from the parking facility server that indicates the number of vehicles in the parking facility compared to the number of available parking spaces.”) and/or
a timeliness of the received occupancy state data. (Swanson: Column 13, Line 19-25)
Regarding Claim 14,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
A parking assistance device which is configured to perform a method according to claim 1. (Swanson: Column 1, Line 36-44)
Regarding Claim 15,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, upon execution by a parking assistance device comprising a processor device, cause the parking assistance device to execute a method according to claim 1. (Swanson: Column 1, Line 36-44)
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A mobile terminal... (Swanson: Column 5, Line 20-23)
...
a processor; and (Swanson: Column 1, Line 36-38)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium... (Swanson: Column 6, Line 66-67 and Column 7, Line 18-20)
Therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The mobile terminal according to claim 16 further comprising a parking assistance device comprising the processor (Swanson: Column 6, Line 27-33) and the non-transitory computer-readable medium. (Swanson: Column 6, Line 66-67 and Column 7, Line 18-20)
Regarding Claim 18,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
A server device operating in the Internet (Swanson: Column 5, Line 50 – Column 6, Line 7; “...the network 106 is implemented at various scales. For example, the network 106 can be implemented as one or more vehicle are networks, local area networks (LANs), metropolitan area networks, subnets, wide area networks (such as the Internet), or can be implemented at another scale.”) and comprising the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium according to claim 15. (Swanson: Column 6, Line 66 – Column 7, Line 4)
Regarding Claim 19,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
A server device operating in the Internet and comprising a parking assistance device according to claim 14. (Swanson: Column 5, Line 50 – Column 6, Line 7; “...the network 106 is implemented at various scales. For example, the network 106 can be implemented as one or more vehicle are networks, local area networks (LANs), metropolitan area networks, subnets, wide area networks (such as the Internet), or can be implemented at another scale.”)
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A motor vehicle... (Swanson: Abstract)
...
a processor; and (Swanson: Column 1, Line 36-38)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium... (Swanson: Column 6, Line 66-67 and Column 7, Line 18-20)
Therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, as applied to claims 1-6 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Higuchi et al. (US 20230177958; hereinafter Higuchi, already of record).
Regarding Claim 7,
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, teaches
The parking assistance method according to claim 3,...
Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, does not teach
...wherein by the parking assistance device, when the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion:
predicating a period of time for the parking space search in the preset perimeter, and
when the predicated period of time exceeds a preset threshold value, setting the amount of data of the second preset range of values as the amount of data.
However in the same field of endeavor, Higuchi teaches
...wherein by the parking assistance device, when the navigation destination satisfies the preset favoring criterion:
predicating a period of time for the parking space search in the preset perimeter, (Higuchi: Paragraph [0039]) and
when the predicated period of time exceeds a preset threshold value, setting the amount of data of the second preset range of values as the amount of data. (Higuchi: Paragraph [0040]-[0042], [0052])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parking assistance of Swanson, in view of Scofield, and further in view of Beaurepaire, with the time period consideration and adjustment of Higuchi for the benefit of improving the identification of parking availability, and, more particularly, to tracking parking activity of vehicles to identify active regions that lack parking and selectively activating parking availability functions in vehicles within the active regions. (Higuchi: Paragraph [0001])
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is analogous to Claim 7 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is analogous to Claim 7 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is analogous to Claim 7 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663