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 Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on July 11, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are currently amended.
Claims 2 and 5 are currently canceled.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
The outstanding 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation invocation is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments deleting the following terms from the claim language: “travel route acquisition unit” in claim 1; “satellite image acquisition unit” in claims 1, 3, and 5; “detection unit” in claims 1, 2, and 3; “guide unit” in claims 2 and 4; “estimation unit” in claim 3; “interval detection unit” in claim 4; and “prediction unit” in claim 5.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that “amended claim 1 recites specific operations that are not mental processes and cannot be performed by the human mind. For example, the above features require interaction between multiple hardware components, including a processor, a navigation system, a display device, and a server storing satellite image data and weather information. These operations involve real-time satellite image processing, area recognition, dynamic route generation and guidance, and interaction with a vehicle display device, all of which require processing capabilities beyond the human mind. Further, the claimed device performs shadow degree calculation and route display in different cases to improve vehicle guidance in a real-world parking environment considering weather and sunlight conditions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea in the manner of claims that merely collect and process data or perform mental steps.” See Remarks submitted on July 11, 2025, page 7.
Applicant further argues that, “the claimed device involves additional features of detecting available parking spaces based on the satellite image, and displaying routes to the detected available parking spaces. At least these additional features of amended claim 1 integrate the alleged judicial exception into the practical application of allowing dynamic vehicle guidance that adapts to real-time environment. Because the claimed device not only processes data but also displays route display for the driver based on satellite image analysis.” See Remarks submitted on July 11, 2025, page 7.
Applicant also argues that, “the use of route display integrated with real-time satellite image and weather information provides a tangible technical benefit over conventional systems that lack environmental context. Specifically, the claimed device calculates shadow degrees of the available parking spaces detected on the satellite image based on the weather information, and displays different routes based on whether the vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device When a vehicle is equipped with a solar panel, the claimed device displays a route to a parking space with less shade. Otherwise, the claimed device displays a route to a shaded parking space to reduce heat buildup. These features enable route display that either maximizes solar exposure for energy generation or minimizes cabin temperature and sun drainage.” See Remarks submitted on July 11, 2025, pages 7-8.
Further, Applicant argues that the “additional features provide a tangible benefit by minimizing user burden in parking decisions and reducing unnecessary cruising for parking. The claimed device thus provides a clear practical application in the field of vehicle guidance and environmental adaptation systems, and offers a technical solution to the problem of environmentally-aware parking optimization. This results in an improvement to vehicle navigation systems by enabling real-time parking guidance based on environmental data, such as parking state and sunlight, thereby reducing parking time, improving energy usage efficiency, and enhancing driver comfort… . Thus, when viewed as a combination, the additional elements yield a claim as a whole that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.” See Remarks submitted on July 11, 2025, page 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant states that the operations involve real-time satellite image processing, however, there is no claim language or disclosure in the specification indicating that these calculations are taking place in real-time.
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception”). The courts have also identified limitations that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application including merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The Examiner interprets the processor and memory as applying instructions in order to reach the end result of displaying a route on a display. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for a task (e.g., to receive, store or transmit data) after the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the shadow degree calculations, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,” to be an abstract idea. (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) The specification indicates that the degree of shade of a parking space is determined by analyzing the location information of the parking space of the parking lot, the time to park in the parking lot, and the like, to predict the degree of shade in the parking space in the parking time. See originally filed specification [0069]. This observation can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
Simply automating this process and displaying results, using generic computer processors, includes mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and have been identified by the courts as not integrating a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments regarding detecting available parking spaces based on the satellite image, and displaying routes to the detected available parking spaces, detecting an available parking space based on a satellite image, obtained from a server, can be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered to be an abstract idea. Further, the act of displaying this information is considered to be mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and has been identified by the courts as not integrating a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed device displays different routes based on whether the vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device. Determining whether a vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device and generating a route to a first available parking space having a lowest calculated degree of shade among the available parking spaces and determining whether a vehicle is not equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device and generating a second route to a second available parking space having a highest calculated degree of shade among the available parking spaces are considered to be mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The act of displaying this information is considered to be mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and has been identified by the courts as not integrating a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed device providing a practical application in the field of vehicle guidance and environmental adaptation systems, the courts have identified examples that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, including when the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim limitations include a practical application but rather the claim, considered as a whole, includes additional elements that do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, of parking navigation.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained, although modified in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they 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. Based on Applicant’s amendments, resulting in changing the scope of the claim language, a new ground of rejection is made of claim 1 in view of Carbune (Publication US 2021/0325192 A1), in view of Mecikalski (Publication US 2020/0348447 A1), further in view of Caira (Publication US 2016/0238399 A1), and further in view of Baudrit (EP 279361 A1). The Caira reference is used to teach “calculate, by machine learning, degrees of shade of the one or more available parking spaces based on the acquired weather information”. See at least Caira [0032]. The Baudrit reference is used to teach “in a case where the first vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device, the first available parking space having a lowest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces.” See at least Baudrit [0052], [0054], [0074], [0077], and [0080].
The 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained, although modified based on new references found during the updated search based on Applicant’s amendments to the claim language.
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“detect one or more available parking spaces in a parking lot located in the area based on the acquired satellite image”;
“generate one or more routes to the detected one or more available parking spaces or to the parking lot with the detected one or more available parking spaces respectively”;
“calculate … degrees of shade of the one or more available parking spaces based on the acquired weather information respectively”
“in a case where the first vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause … a first generated route to a first available parking space …, the first available parking space having a lowest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces”
“in a case where the first vehicle is not equipped with the photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause … a second generated route to a second available parking space …, the second available parking space having a greatest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces”,
and as drafted, are limitations that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “a memory configured to store instructions that cause the processor to”, “a navigation system”, “a display device”, “a server”, and “machine learning”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitation from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements –
“a processor”,
“a memory configured to store instructions that cause the processor to”,
“a navigation system”,
“a display device”,
“a server”,
“acquire, from the navigation system, a travel route of the first vehicle”,
“acquire, from a server, a satellite image of an area around the acquired travel route”,
“display the generated one or more routes on the display device”,
“acquire, from the server, weather information associated with the acquired satellite image”,
“machine learning”,
“the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device”, and
“the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device.”
The “processor”, “memory configured to store instructions that cause the processor to:”, “navigation system”, “display device”, “server”, “machine learning” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic processing equipment performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “acquire, from the navigation system, a travel route of the first vehicle”, “acquire, from a server, a satellite image of an area around the acquired travel route”, and “acquire, from the server, weather information associated with the acquired satellite image”, are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “display the generated one or more routes on the display device”, “the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device”, and “the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device”, are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere post solution activity displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, of the following will be addressed:
“a processor”,
“a memory configured to store instructions that cause the processor to”,
“a navigation system”,
“a display device”,
“a server”,
“acquire, from the navigation system, a travel route of the first vehicle”,
“acquire, from a server, a satellite image of an area around the acquired travel route”,
“display the generated one or more routes on the display device”,
“acquire, from the server, weather information associated with the acquired satellite image”,
“machine learning”,
“the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device”, and
“the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device.”
The “processor”, “memory configured to store instructions that cause the processor to:”, “navigation system”, “display device”, “server”, “machine learning” merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract ideas in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment, are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea limitations.
The “acquire, from the navigation system, a travel route of the first vehicle”, “acquire, from a server, a satellite image of an area around the acquired travel route”, and “acquire, from the server, weather information associated with the acquired satellite image”, are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “display the generated one or more routes on the display device”, “the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device”, and “the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device”, are recited at a high level of generality and amount to post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3 and 4: Generic Computer Components
Claim 3 recites “the processor”.
Claim 3 recites “by machine learning based on the acquired satellite images”.
Claim 4 recites “the processor”.
These limitations are additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, these additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract ideas in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3 and 4: Abstract Ideas
Claim 3 recites “determine whether the parking lot has no available parking space based on the acquired satellite image.”
Claim 3 recites “calculate a time period during which a second vehicle has parked in a first parking space, the first parking space being located in the parking lot.”
Claim 3 recites “estimate … a time when the first parking space will become available, based on the calculated time period.”
Claim 4 recites “detect an interval between a third vehicle parked next to one available parking space and the one available parking space.” Claim 4 recites “… a third generated route to a third available parking space, the third available parking space having a largest interval among the one or more available parking spaces.”
All of these limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3: Data Gathering
Claim 3 recites “periodically acquire satellite images in a case where determination is made that the parking lot has no available parking space”.
This limitation is mere data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, since the limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4: Display
Claim 4 recites “display a third generated route to a third available parking space”.
This limitation is mere post solution activity and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, since the limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element, even in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune, et al., Publication US 2021/0325192 A1, in view of Mecikalski, Publication US 2020/0348447 A1, further in view of Caira, et al., Publication US 2016/0238399 A1, further in view of Baudrit, EP 4279361 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Carbune”, “Mecikalski”, “Caira”, and “Baudrit”.)
As per claim 1, Carbune discloses an information management device of a first vehicle including a navigation system [see at least Carbune 0025] "The system of this disclosure implements one or several techniques … for generating fine-tuned navigation directions."], and a display device [see at least Carbune [0061] "FIG. 2A illustrates … user interface screen 200 which an existing mapping application can display to provide navigation directions..."], the information management device comprising:
a processor [see at least Carbune [0036] "…reference to FIG. 1A, the server 104 includes one or more processors 120…"]; and
a memory configured to store instructions that cause the processor to [see at least Carbune [0036] "…reference to FIG. 1A, the server 103 includes one or more processors 120 and a non-transitory memory (e.g., a hard disk, a flash drive) storing instructions that implement a navigation system…"]:
acquire, from the navigation system, a travel route of the first vehicle [see at least Carbune [0036] "...reference to FIG. 1A, the server 104 includes one or more processors 120 and a non-transitory memory (e.g., a hard disk, a flash drive) storing instructions that implement a navigation system including a routing engine 122…"; [0037] "…a routing engine 122 can generate routes traversing geographic areas and the corresponding navigation directions."];
acquire, from a server, a satellite image of an area around the acquired travel route [see at least Carbune [0007] " The system can determine a two-dimensional geometric shape encompassing multiple candidate access points for a destination as well as other points that are not candidate access points. To this end, the system can use satellite imagery…"]; [0029] “The server 104 can be communicatively coupled to a database 110 that stores map data for various geographic areas. … The map data also can include street-level imagery and photographs taken from various vantage points.];
detect one or more available parking spaces in a parking lot located in the area based on the acquired satellite image [see at least Carbune [0007] "…the system can use satellite imagery, … to identify natural and/or artificial boundaries enclosing geographic areas. …the system can store in a mapping database…one or more parking garages."; [0009] " … users requesting navigation directions to a mountain may tend to access a hiking trail ... from a certain parking lot, and the system can apply the machine learning model to identify this and similar access point."];
generate one or more routes to the detected one or more available parking spaces or to the parking lot with the detected one or more available parking spaces respectively [see at least Carbune [0039] "...the access point selector 124 can determine that a certain user typically uses street parking rather than parking lots or garages, and selects a street segment without parking restrictions nearest to the destination as an access point, when this information is available."; [0065] "FIG. 3 illustrates another example user interface screen 300 including fine-tuned navigation directions the system of this disclosure can generate. ... The access points 303-307 correspond to parking lots (304, 306, 307) and/or entrances to the stadium (303, 305). In this example, the access point selector 124 selects the point 304 in view of one or more contextual signals, and the routing engine 122 according generates a route 320 that terminates at the access point 304."];
display the generated one or more routes on the display device [see at least Carbune [0065] "FIG. 3 illustrates another example user interface screen 300 including fine-tuned navigation directions the system of this disclosure can generate.];
acquire, from the server, weather information … [see at least Carbune [0035] "... the server 104 can access any suitable number of databases such as those storing ... current weather data..."; [0044] "…The memory 130 also stores a mapping and navigation application 142, which can be configured to generate interactive digital maps and output navigation directions. The mapping application 142 can receive map data … In some cases, the map data can be organized into layers, such as...a weather layer depicting current weather conditions..."; (images) [0007] "The system can determine a two-dimensional geometric shape encompassing multiple candidate access points for a destination ... To this end, the system can use satellite imagery ... "]; and
calculate, by machine learning, … {parking information} … based on the acquired weather information … [see at least Carbune [0080] "…the navigation system can generate training data for training a machine learning model configured to output access points for various destinations (see block 612 below) … the training data also can include … weather… ."]
Carbune fails to disclose …weather information associated with the acquired satellite image … . However, Mecikalski teaches this limitation [see at least Mecikalski [0044] "…By comparing images defined by the satellite image data 17, the weather forecasting logic 50 may determine an interest field value indicative of how fast a cloud…is growing."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Carbune to use …weather information associated with the acquired satellite image … as disclosed in Mecikalski with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of predicting the extent to which rain, precipitation, or another weather event will occur during the time period. [See at least Mecikalski [0009].]
The combination of Carbune and Mecikalski fails to disclose … calculate, by machine learning, degrees of shade of the one or more … parking spaces based on the acquired weather information …, and … in a case where the first vehicle is not equipped with the photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device, the second available parking space having a greatest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces. However, Caira teaches these limitations:
… calculate, by machine learning, degrees of shade of the one or more … parking spaces based on the acquired weather information … [see at least Caira [0032] "The calculation or simulation of shadows by parking program 120 starts with a determination of the sun azimuth and altitude at the time and location in question. ... Once the sun azimuth and altitude are known for the destination area, metadata from maps on geographical parking database 135 is used to determine the dimensions of shadow-casting objects such as buildings and trees, which surround the eligible parking spots. The shadows that are cast from such objects are then determined by calculations well known in the art and the parking spots that are shaded are differentiated from the parking spots that are in the sun."; claim 6 "...wherein the step of assigning, by one or more processors, a ranking order for the one or more parking spaces based on one or both criteria of comfort and safety further comprises: assigning, by one or more processors, a ranking order for the one or more parking spaces based on one or more considerations including ...a degree of shade of the one or more parking spaces..."], and
… in a case where the first vehicle is not equipped with the photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device, the second available parking space having a greatest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces [see at least Caira [0035] "In step 225, parking program 120 uses GPS receiver 125 to navigate the vehicle operator to the number one sorted parking spot."; [0034] "In step 220, parking program 120 sorts the weighted parking spots from highest weight (most desirable) to lowest weight (least desirable) based on the customizable criteria set up by the vehicle operators."; [0037] "FIG. 3 depicts a map schematic, designated 300, illustrating a potential output of parking program 120, on computing device 110 within the environment of FIG. 1, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, ...Building 310 casts a shadow by blocking direct sunlight from setting sun 340. The result is that the three parking spots 335, which are completely shaded by building 310 from the sunlight of setting sun 340 have the highest weighting (0.98). Parking spot 330, which is partially shaded from setting sun 340 during the anticipated stay of the vehicle, is given a lower weighting (0.75) by parking program 120. All of the other parking spots, of which parking spots 325 are representative, are not shaded by at all from setting sun 340. Consequently, these parking spots have the lowest weighting (0.40)."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Carbune and Mecikalski to use … calculate, by machine learning, degrees of shade of the one or more … parking spaces based on the acquired weather information …, and … in a case where the first vehicle is not equipped with the photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause the processor to display a second generated route to a second available parking space on the display device, the second available parking space having a greatest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces as disclosed in Caira with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved trip comfort. [See at least Caira [0008].]
The combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, and Caira fails to disclose … in a case where the first vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device, the first available parking space having a lowest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces … . However, Baudrit teaches this limitation [see at least Baudrit [0052] "Vehicle 102 is equipped with a photovoltaics, PV, arrangement 124 at its vehicle body. A park assist module 126 for assisted parking is associated with vehicle 102 ... The park assist functionality may comprise recommending any of parking places 106, 108, 109 with intention of optimizing a solar yield of the PV arrangement 124 during parking, where the according energy may be used for charging the vehicle 102..."; [0054] "The park assist component 126 is illustrated in Fig. 2 as comprising … a ranking component 206 and an output or presentation component 208."; [0074] "The ranking component 206 operates to rank the received PV yield estimates. Such ranking may be based on the yields, such that parking orientations and/or according parking positions with highest yields are ranked preferred, while others are ranked less preferable."; [0077] "Step 308 may further comprise...ranking component 206 providing a result of the ranking to output/presentation component 208 of park assist module 126. The output component 208 may provide an according indication for output to a display 213..."; [0080] "Fig. 4B illustrates an example embodiment of a presentation or output 420 to display 213. A graphical icon or representation 422 of vehicle 102 is presented together with further symbolic representation intended to support the driver in parking the vehicle 102 in a preferred orientation as estimated by parking assistant 126 for achieving an optimized PV yield."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, and Caira to use … in a case where the first vehicle is equipped with a photovoltaic power generation device, the instructions further cause the processor to display a first generated route to a first available parking space on the display device, the first available parking space having a lowest calculated degree of shade among the one or more available parking spaces … as disclosed in Baudrit with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved parking assistance for vehicles. [See at least Baudrit [0005].]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune, in view of Mecikalski, further in view of Caira, further in view of Baudrit, further in view of Nakagawa, et al., Publication US 2023/0400322 A1, and further in view of Dama, et al., US Patent 11,928,964 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nakagawa” and “Dama”.)
As per claim 3, the combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, and Baudrit, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Carbune discloses … wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: determine … the parking lot … based on the acquired satellite image and … acquire satellite images … [see at least Carbune [0007] "The system can determine a two-dimensional geometric shape encompassing multiple candidate access points for a destination ... To this end, the system can use satellite imagery ... "; [0039] "...the access point selector 124 can determine that a certain user typically uses street parking rather than parking lots or garages, and selects a street segment without parking restrictions nearest to the destination as an access point, when this information is available."; [0065] "FIG. 3 illustrates another example user interface screen 300 including fine-tuned navigation directions the system of this disclosure can generate. ... The access points 303-307 correspond to parking lots (304, 306, 307) and/or entrances to the stadium (303, 305). In this example, the access point selector 124 selects the point 304 in view of one or more contextual signals, and the routing engine 122 according generates a route 320 that terminates at the access point 304."].
The combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, and Baudrit fails to disclose … determine whether the parking lot has no available parking space ... and … periodically acquire … images, in a case where determination is made that the parking lot has no available parking space … . However, Nakagawa teaches these limitations:
… determine whether the parking lot has no available parking space ... [see at least Nakagawa [0097] "The infrastructure system 40 updates the full/vacancy information and the parking lot congestion information in real time, and stores the updated full/vacancy information and parking lot congestion information in the navigation server 60 (step S103). Specifically, the recognition server analyzes the in-parking lot image data acquired from the infrastructure camera 80 and detects whether a parking space is unoccupied, thereby updating the full/vacancy information in real time and storing the updated full/vacancy information in the navigation server 60."], and
… periodically acquire … images, in a case where determination is made that the parking lot has no available parking space … [see at least Nakagawa [0097] "The infrastructure system 40 updates the full/vacancy information and the parking lot congestion information in real time, and stores the updated full/vacancy information and parking lot congestion information in the navigation server 60 (step S103). Specifically, the recognition server analyzes the in-parking lot image data acquired from the infrastructure camera 80 and detects whether a parking space is unoccupied, thereby updating the full/vacancy information in real time and storing the updated full/vacancy information in the navigation server 60."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, and Baudrit to use … determine whether the parking lot has no available parking space ... and … periodically acquire … images, in a case where determination is made that the parking lot has no available parking space … as disclosed in Nakagawa with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved location of vehicle parking information without installing new equipment. [See at least Nakagawa [0004].]
The combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, Baudrit, and Nakagawa fails to disclose … calculate a time period during which a second vehicle has parked in a first parking space, the first parking space being located in the parking lot, and estimate, by machine learning based on the acquired satellite images, a time when the first parking space will become available, based on the calculated time period. However, Dama teaches these limitations:
… calculate a time period during which a second vehicle has parked in a first parking space, the first parking space being located in the parking lot [See at least Dama col 2, lines 49-53 "The parking occupancy model uses this information in at least two ways. First, the information allows the parking occupancy model to tell whether a parking place is currently occupied or vacant and for how long it has been occupied or vacant."], and
estimate, by machine learning based on the acquired satellite images, a time when the first parking space will become available, based on the calculated time period [see at least Dama col 1, lines 65-67 "The parking availability predictor system uses the occupancy model to predict when parking that meets the user's needs will become available."; col. 2, lines 36-44 "Such static parking characteristics can be obtained from various sources such as...analysis of images of the parking spaces by machine learning models trained to identify parking space characteristics, manual tagging of parking spaces, crowd sourced information of users supplying parking space characteristics as the parking availability predictor system is used"; col. 3, lines 4-12 "if the occupancy model knows that people tend to park for two hours in front of a given restaurant, and if three user-suitable spaces in front of the restaurant have been occupied for almost two hours, then the occupancy model knows that suitable parking will probably become available at expected vacancy times calculated for each place as the difference between the expected parking duration (two hours) and the measured parking duration of each place's current occupancy."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, Baudrit, and Nakagawa to use … calculate a time period during which a second vehicle has parked in a first parking space, the first parking space being located in the parking lot, and estimate, by machine learning based on the acquired satellite images, a time when the first parking space will become available, based on the calculated time period as disclosed in Dama with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of finding appropriate parking in the shortest amount of time. [See at least Dama col. 1, lines 18-22.]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune, in view of Mecikalski, further in view of Caira, further in view of Baudrit, and further in view of Moshchuk, et al., Publication US 2009/0260907 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Moshchuk”.)
As per claim 4, the combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, and Baudrit, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Carbune discloses … display a third generated route to a third available parking space, … the third available parking space … [see at least Carbune FIG. 4; [0068] "… the train station is near a number of parking lots corresponding to access points 404, 406, and 408. In response to a request for navigation directions to the train station received from a driver, an existing geographic application typically attempts to generate navigation directions to the point 402, and the navigation directions can terminate at a point on a street near the train station. On the other hand, the access point selector 124 can select one of the access points 404, 406, or 408 as the preferred access point, and the routing engine 122 can generate navigation directions to the corresponding location."; [0019] "FIG. 4 is an example user interface screen which the mapping application of FIG. 1 can generate to provide fine-tuned navigation directions."
The combination of Carbune, Mecikalski, Caira, and Baudrit fails to disclose …wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: detect an interval between a third vehicle parked next to one available parking space and the one available parking space … and … the third available parking space having a largest interval among the one or more available parking spaces. However, Moshchuk teaches these limitations [see at least Moshchuk FIG. 4 "41 Determine a Distance Between a First Object and a Second Object"; [0022] "FIG. 4 illustrates a method … for parallel parking the vehicle. IN step 40, the parallel parking routine is started. IN step 41, the distance between a first object and a second object for parallel parking the vehicle is determined."; FIG. 4 "42 L>L(1)? NO"; "45 L>L(2)? NO", "48 Continue Searching for Next Available Parking Space"; [0024] "In step 42, if the determination is made that the determined distance is less than the first predetermined distance, then the routine co