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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 3-5, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument that amended independent claim 1 recites a specific, technological system architecture that provides a concrete improvement in predicting congestion levels from satellite imagery. In particular, the Examiner is in agreement that the features directed towards providing a prompt at the user terminal to change the site/day/time when the predicted congestion exceeds a threshold as amounting to an improvement to the technology which integrates the claimed abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 6-12, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Regarding Argument A (Pgs. 6-7), Applicant argues that Perez, High, and Agarwal fail to teach a satellite server storing satellite images in association with the date, time, and day of the week when the satellite images were captured. The Examiner is in agreement that Perez fails to provide the claimed satellite server. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that High fails to teach or suggest “the satellite server comprising a processor and memory configured to store the satellite images in association with the date, time, and day of the week when the satellite images were captured;” Applicant asserts that “High likewise does not disclose a satellite server or any mechanism for storing images with metadata tied to date, time, or day of the week”; however, this is not the case. The satellite server of High corresponds to the system 100 including control circuit 110 and satellite image database 120 (see at least [0021]). Paragraphs [0029]-[0031] disclose compiling multiple satellite images of a parking lot taken over time and stored in the satellite image database 120, and determining a utilization rate of the parking lot by timeframe (hour, day, week, month, etc.), wherein “the system may count the number of parked cars and/or empty parking spots in each satellite image of the parking lot to determine the parking spot utilization rate (e.g. occupancy rate) during different times of a day, different days of a week, different days of a month, different days of a year, different weeks of a year, etc.” Therefore, the Examiner asserts that High does teach “the satellite server comprising a processor and memory configured to store the satellite images in association with the date, time, and day of the week when the satellite images were captured;”
Regarding Argument B (Pgs. 8-9), Applicant argues that Perez, High, and Agarwal fail to teach or suggest “acquire a satellite image from the satellite server of the target site captured on a date and time on which at least one of: (i) the day of the week is the same as the target day, or (ii) at a time slot that is the same as the target time;” The Examiner is in agreement that Perez fails to teach or suggest acquiring the satellite image from the satellite server. However, the Examiner respectfully asserts that High does teach the above-recited limitation in at least paragraphs [0021] and [0027]-[0031], where it is disclosed that “the system may count the number of parked cars and/or empty parking spots in each satellite image of the parking lot to determine the parking spot utilization rate (e.g. occupancy rate) during different times of a day, different days of a week, different days of a month, different days of a year, different weeks of a year, etc…” In combination with the “given day” of Perez (see at least [0064], Perez and High teach or suggest determining the parking spot utilization rate for the same day as the target day (e.g., Tuesdays, see at least [0062] of High).
Regarding Argument C (Pgs. 9-10), Applicant argues that Perez, High, and Agarwal fail to teach or suggest “analyze the satellite image to determine a congestion level on the target day, at the target time, and the target site, the congestion level being estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site;” The Examiner is in partial agreement with Applicant’s argument. In particular, the Examiner asserts that Perez does teach analyzing the satellite image to determine a congestion level on the target day, at the target time, and the target site in at least paragraph [0062]; however, the Examiner is in agreement that Perez, High, and Agarwal fail to teach that the congestion level is estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site.
Regarding Argument D (Pgs. 11-12), Applicant argues that Perez, High, and Agarwal fail to teach or suggest “output a menu to the user terminal to select from changing a value from among: (i) the target site, (ii) the target day, and (iii) the target time, in a case in which the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Agarwal teaches these features in at least paragraphs [0155]-[0156]. When the server 906 of Agarwal determines that the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined value of 50%, the server 906 determines that the destination of the vehicle should be changed (i.e., the target site should be changed). In response to this determination, the server 906 transmits a request to the passenger which indicates that the vehicle recommends changing the destination to a different destination (e.g., changing the destination from a first parking location to a different parking location) and requests approval from the passenger to perform the change of the target site.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration in view of the modified scope of the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Perez, High, Sullivan, and Agarwal.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the amendments to the claim introduce new matter. There is insufficient support in the written description for the amended feature “a satellite comprising a processor and memory configured to take images of a geographic area and transmit the satellite images to a satellite server;” While the written description does discuss satellites configured to take images of a geographic area (see at least [0017]-[0018], there is a lack of support for a satellite comprising a processor and a memory. Therefore, these features amount to new matter.
Further, there is a lack of support in the written description for the amended feature “the congestion level being estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site;” While paragraph [0041] of the written description does disclose predicting an average value of the number of vehicles present in the acquired satellite image as the congestion level, and predicting an average value of a ratio of an area of vehicles parked in a parking lot to an area of the parking lot captured in the acquired satellite image as the congestion level, this ratio differs from the claimed ratio because “a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site” differs from “an average value of a ratio of an area of vehicles parked in a parking lot to an area of the parking lot” (i.e., number of vehicles does not correspond to area of vehicles). The written description does not include any further references to a “ratio”. Therefore, these features amount to new matter.
Even further, there is a lack of support in the written description for the amended feature “and output a menu to the user terminal to select from changing a value from among: (i) the target site, (ii) the target day, and (iii) the target time, in a case in which the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value.” While the written description does disclose (see at least [0053]) outputting “a change prompt notification to the user terminal 30”, it is not clear from this disclosure that “a change prompt notification” encompasses the same scope as “a menu”. The written description does not recite the word “menu”; therefore the term must be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner asserts that the term “menu” is broader in scope than “a change prompt notification”, and the written description fails to sufficiently define the term “menu”. Therefore, these features amount to new matter.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the satellite server comprising a processor and memory” “a user terminal comprising a processor and memory”, “a center server comprising a processor and memory”. However, prior to reciting these features, claim 1 already provides antecedent basis for “a satellite comprising a processor and memory”. Here, the processor and memory of each of the satellite, the satellite server, the user terminal, and the center server are defined as “a processor and memory”, making it unclear whether each of the satellite, the satellite server, the user terminal, and the center server must possess a unique processor and memory, or if the satellite, the satellite server, the user terminal, and the center server are able to share a processor and memory (or a combination of these arrangements). For the purposes of this examination, each of the satellite, the satellite server, the user terminal, and the center server are being interpreted as each comprising a unique processor and memory.
Further, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, independent claim 1 is directed to new matter and therefore includes features which are not sufficiently defined by the written description. Therefore, the features “a satellite comprising a processor and memory configured to take images of a geographic area and transmit the satellite images to a satellite server”, “the congestion level being estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site”, and “and output a menu to the user terminal to select from changing a value from among: (i) the target site, (ii) the target day, and (iii) the target time, in a case in which the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value” render claim 1 indefinite.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez (US 2020/0250592 A1) in view of High et al. (US 2017/0124378 A1), hereinafter High, and in further view of Sullivan et al. (US 2017/0098374 A1), hereinafter Sullivan, and in even further view of Agarwal et al. (US 2022/0415173 A1), hereinafter Agarwal.
Regarding claim 1, Perez teaches a congestion prediction system, comprising:
a user terminal comprising a processor and memory…
Perez teaches ([0037]): "The driver computing device 100 shown in FIG. 2 includes an antenna 112, a transmitter 104, a receiver 106, and a processing device 108, e.g., a processor, controller, or the like…" Perez further teaches ([0041]): "The driver computing device 100 can also include volatile memory 122 and/or non-volatile memory 124..."
a user terminal... configured to send information on a target site, a target day, and a target time to the center server;
Perez teaches ([0055]): "In various embodiments, a parking reservation location database 240 may be maintained by the route planning system 200. Various modules 230, 235, a driver computing device 100, and/or a user (directly or indirectly) interfacing with the route planning system 200 may access, query, and/or write to the parking reservation location database 240. For example, the route planning module 230 or the parking reservation module 235 may access the parking reservation location database 240 to determine if any delivery locations associated with the items to be delivered on a given day have been identified as locations where a parking reservation may make the delivery of an item to the location more efficient. In another example, a driver computing device 100 may access the parking reservation location database 240 to determine if parking reservations located near a particular delivery location are available." Perez further teaches ([0056]): "In some embodiments, the parking reservation location database 240 may also store historical parking data that may be used to predict when parking may be available (e.g., times of the day and/or days of the week when parking may be available without the use of a parking reservation or when parking may be available near locations where parking reservations are not available)." Perez even further teaches ([0064]): "The route planning module 230 may be configured to plan and/or optimize a delivery route or a set of delivery routes based on the items to be delivered and/or picked up on a given day, and/or other relevant criteria in some embodiments, the route planning module 230 may be configured to plan and/or optimize one or more delivery routes based at least in part on one or more parking reservations and/or the projected availability of parking spaces."
and a center server comprising a processor and memory configured to:
Perez teaches ([0042]): "FIG. 3 provides a schematic diagram of an example route planning system 200 that may be used in connection with embodiments of the invention… In general, the term "system" may refer to, for example… servers or server networks… The illustrated route planning system 200 includes a processor 210... As will therefore be understood, the processor 210 may be configured for a particular use or configured to execute instructions stored in volatile or non-volatile media or otherwise accessible to the processor 210."
receive information from the user terminal indicating a target site, a target day, and a target time;
Perez teaches ([0055]): "In various embodiments, a parking reservation location database 240 may be maintained by the route planning system 200. Various modules 230, 235, a driver computing device 100, and/or a user (directly or indirectly) interfacing with the route planning system 200 may access, query, and/or write to the parking reservation location database 240. For example, the route planning module 230 or the parking reservation module 235 may access the parking reservation location database 240 to determine if any delivery locations associated with the items to be delivered on a given day have been identified as locations where a parking reservation may make the delivery of an item to the location more efficient. In another example, a driver computing device 100 may access the parking reservation location database 240 to determine if parking reservations located near a particular delivery location are available." Perez further teaches ([0056]): "In some embodiments, the parking reservation location database 240 may also store historical parking data that may be used to predict when parking may be available (e.g., times of the day and/or days of the week when parking may be available without the use of a parking reservation or when parking may be available near locations where parking reservations are not available)." Perez even further teaches ([0064]): "The route planning module 230 may be configured to plan and/or optimize a delivery route or a set of delivery routes based on the items to be delivered and/or picked up on a given day, and/or other relevant criteria in some embodiments, the route planning module 230 may be configured to plan and/or optimize one or more delivery routes based at least in part on one or more parking reservations and/or the projected availability of parking spaces."
analyze the satellite image to determine a congestion level on the target day, at the target time, and the target site,
Perez teaches ([0062]): "For example, based on historical data, the parking reservation module 235 may identify time windows on various days during which a parking space tends to be available or is likely to be available. For example, based on data collected last month, the parking reservation module 235 may determine that a parking space is usually open on Tuesdays between 1:00 and 2:00 pm near a particular delivery location address. The historical data may be collected based on observations by delivery vehicle drivers, satellite images, traffic patterns, and/or other source. The historical data may include data collected over the previous month, more than one previous month, several weeks, and/or the like... In various embodiments, the parking reservation module 235 may be configured to calculate the probability that a parking space will be available during one or more time windows. If it is determined that the probability that a parking space will be available during a particular time window exceeds a probability threshold (e.g., the probability that a parking space will be available is greater than and/or approximately equal to 95%, 90%, 75%, 50%, or the like), the parking reservation module 235 may provide the relevant information to the route planning module 230 for use in planning one or more delivery routes and/or save the relevant information to the parking reservation location database 240." Therefore, Perez teaches the determination of a congestion level on a target day (e.g., Tuesday) of a target site based on the historical data (which includes satellite image data) at a target time (e.g., between 1:00 and 2:00 pm)
output data to the user terminal indicating the congestion level on the target day, at the target time, and the target site;
Perez teaches ([0063]): "In other embodiments, the driver computing device 100 may be configured to communicate with the route planning system 200 in such a manner that a delivery vehicle driver may make use of the functionality of the parking reservation module 235 operating on the route planning system 200 via the driver computing device 100. Thus, in various embodiments, the parking reservation module 235 may act as an intermediary between the driver computing device 100 and the parking reservation system 300..." Perez further teaches ([0062]): "For example, based on historical data, the parking reservation module 235 may identify time windows on various days during which a parking space tends to be available or is likely to be available. For example, based on data collected last month, the parking reservation module 235 may determine that a parking space is usually open on Tuesdays between 1:00 and 2:00 pm near a particular delivery location address. The historical data may include data collected over the previous month, more than one previous month, several weeks, and/or the like..."
However, while Perez does teach analysis of satellite images (see at least [0062]), Perez does not outright teach a satellite comprising a processor and memory configured to take images of a geographic area and transmit the satellite images to a satellite server; the satellite server comprising a processor and memory configured to store the satellite images in association with the date, time, and day of the week when the satellite images were captured; and acquiring a satellite image from the satellite server of the target site captured on a date and time on which at least one of: (i) the day of the week is the same as the target day, or (ii) at a time slot that is the same as the target time. High teaches an apparatus and method for monitoring a parking area, comprising:
a satellite comprising a processor and memory configured to take images of a geographic area and transmit the satellite images to a satellite server;
High teaches ([0021]): "Referring now to FIG. 1, a system for monitoring a parking area is shown. The system 100 includes a control circuit 110 coupled to a satellite image database 120 storing images captured by a satellite 122…" High further teaches ([0029]): "In step 201, the system compiles multiple satellite images of a parking lot taken over time by one or more satellites. The satellite images may be provided by a satellite service provider and stored in a satellite image database 120."
the satellite server comprising a processor and memory configured to store the satellite images in association with the date, time, and day of the week when the satellite images were captured;
High teaches ([0021]): "Referring now to FIG. 1, a system for monitoring a parking area is shown. The system 100 includes a control circuit 110 coupled to a satellite image database 120 storing images captured by a satellite 122…" High further teaches ([0029]): "In step 201, the system compiles multiple satellite images of a parking lot taken over time by one or more satellites. The satellite images may be provided by a satellite service provider and stored in a satellite image database 120." High even further teaches ([0030]): "In step 202, the system determines a utilization condition for a plurality of sections of the parking lot. In some embodiments, the parking lot may be divided into a plurality of sections, such as: parking spots, a subset of parking spots, individual parking spots... The utilization condition may comprises one or more of: overall utilization rate, utilization rate by timeframe (hour, day, week, month, etc.)" High still further teaches ([0031]): "In some embodiments, the system may count the number of parked cars and/or empty parking spots in each satellite image of the parking lot to determine the parking spot utilization rate (e.g. occupancy rate) during different times of a day, different days of a week, different days of a month, different days of a year, different weeks of a year, etc."
acquire a satellite image from the satellite server of the target site captured on a date and time on which at least one of: (i) the day of the week is the same as the target day, or (ii) at a time slot that is the same as the target time;
High teaches ([0021]): "Referring now to FIG. 1, a system for monitoring a parking area is shown. The system 100 includes a control circuit 110 coupled to a satellite image database 120 storing images captured by a satellite 122…" High further teaches ([0027]): "In some embodiments, one or more of the satellite image database 120, the baseline database 130, the memory device coupled to the control circuit 110, and the memory device for storing the action recommendation 140 may be implemented on the same one or more memory devices or implemented on two or more separate devices. The satellite image database 120, the baseline database 130, the memory device coupled to the control circuit 110, and the memory device for storing the action recommendation 140 may comprise local, remote, networked, and/or cloud based storage accessible by the control circuit 110." High even further teaches ([0031]): "In some embodiments, the system may count the number of parked cars and/or empty parking spots in each satellite image of the parking lot to determine the parking spot utilization rate (e.g. occupancy rate) during different times of a day, different days of a week, different days of a month, different days of a year, different weeks of a year, etc." High is modified such that the satellite image database 120 is accessible to the route planning system 200 of Perez. In such an arrangement, the "different days of a week" of High correspond to "a given day" of Perez (see at least [0064]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Perez to incorporate the teachings of High to provide a satellite comprising a processor and memory configured to take images of a geographic area and transmit the satellite images to a satellite server; the satellite server comprising a processor and memory configured to store the satellite images in association with the date, time, and day of the week when the satellite images were captured; and acquiring a satellite image from the satellite server of the target site captured on a date and time on which at least one of: (i) the day of the week is the same as the target day, or (ii) at a time slot that is the same as the target time. Perez and High are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of parking spot congestion analysis based on satellite imaging. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of High, as the car-counting technique of High beneficially allows for determining expected utilization conditions for different sections of a parking area and/or for different timeframes, as recognized by High (see at least [0034]).
However, neither Perez nor High outright teach the congestion level being estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site. Sullivan teaches parking data aggregation and distribution, comprising:
the congestion level being estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site;
Sullivan teaches ([0042]): "As will be shown later, current data may be displayed on a graphical user interface, and may be compared to historical data. When this data is collected over the course of more than one day, the cloud service can implement simple algorithms such as averaging the number of vehicles per spot, per day, and based on the average for that spot, predict the average number of vehicles in that spot on days in the future. An aspect of the present disclosure is that the data collected by the parking sensors may be used to accurately predict demand (i.e., future occupancy and turnover) for parking in a particular parking area at particular times. Hence, the current/historical occupancy data 610 and current/historical turnover data 620 is shown as measured in time (e.g., hours of the day or elapsed time), day, week, month, and year. Similarly, the output occupancy prediction 670 and turnover prediction 680 is also provided in terms of time, day, week, month, and year."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Perez and High to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to provide the congestion level being estimated based on a ratio of an average number of vehicles captured within the target site to a total area of the target site. Perez, High, and Sullivan are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of parking spot congestion analysis. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan, as the congestion level estimation of Sullivan beneficially allows for accurate prediction of parking congestion for parking in a particular parking area at particular times, as recognized by Sullivan (see at least [0042]).
However, while Perez does teach outputting data to the user terminal indicating the congestion level on the target day, at the target time, and the target site (see at least [0062]-[0063]), Perez does not outright teach outputting a menu to the user terminal to select from changing a value from among: (i) the target site, (ii) the target day, and (iii) the target time, in a case in which the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value. Agarwal teaches forecasting vehicle location occupancy, comprising:
and output a menu to the user terminal to select from changing a value from among: (i) the target site, (ii) the target day, and (iii) the target time, in a case in which the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value.
Agarwal teaches ([0155]): "Referring to FIG. 9B, in the depicted example, the server 520 determines that the availability of the parking location has fallen below a threshold (e.g., a predetermined threshold of 50% probability). In this scenario, when the probability of the availability of the parking location decreases below 50%, the server 906 determines that the destination of the vehicle should be changed." Agarwal further teaches ([0156]): "In an embodiment, the server 906 determines that the destination of the vehicle should be changed based on the accessibility based on traffic congestion... For example, the server 906 transmits 902B a request to the passenger... informing the passenger of the recommended destination change. The request indicates to the passenger that the vehicle recommends changing the destination to a different destination (e.g., changing the destination form a first parking location to a different parking location) and requests 902C approval from the passenger to perform the change of the destination." The Examiner notes that the availability of the parking location falling below a threshold can alternatively be described as the congestion of the parking location being higher than the threshold (e.g., 40% availability would correspond to 60% unavailability, where the unavailability is greater than the 50% probability threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Perez, High, and Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal to provide outputting a menu to the user terminal to select from changing a value from among: (i) the target site, (ii) the target day, and (iii) the target time, in a case in which the predicted congestion level is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value. Perez, High, Sullivan, and Agarwal are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of parking spot congestion analysis. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal, as doing so beneficially allows for presenting a request to the user for performing the change of the target site to another destination when the original target site is higher than a threshold value, as recognized by Agarwal (see at least [0155]-[0156]). The prompting of Agarwal is particularly advantageous if the vehicle user does not wish to change the destination, as the user is given the opportunity to decline such a request (see at least [0157]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (US 2023/0170096 A1) teaches satellite image or vehicular traffic databases used for confirming locations within the satellite/vehicle traffic images, and considering date/time stamps of satellite images/vehicle traffic images to ensure appropriate selection of images (see at least [0143]). Shimizu et al. (US 2023/0412772 A1) teaches a data analysis apparatus, including the use of satellite imaging in detecting events such as the occurrence of a traffic jam (see at least [0195]). St. Romain et al. (US 2021/0404829 A1) teaches a map system for vehicles, including the monitoring of traffic flow by comparison of satellite images and the determination of the best time of day and days of the week to monitor particular regions (see at least [0068])
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 FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662