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 the Claims
The claims 1 and 3-4 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1 and 3, cancelled claim 2, and added claim 4.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed September 9, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 mental process rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not explain how the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an improvement to a technology. Applicant argues that the amended claims include additional elements that integrate an abstract idea into practical application, such as storage configured to store travel information, calculating a sum of forward parking events of the vehicle in a predetermined number of days based on the travel information, and a user terminal configured to display the first information (See page 6 of Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner has considered such arguments; however, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claims remain directed to a judicial exception—specifically, to methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The claimed steps of calculating a sum of forward parking events, acquiring a first frequency by dividing the sum of forward parking events, determining the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold, sending first information, and displaying first information reflect data collection, evaluation, and presentation of results. Performing these steps using “a vehicle including a storage” merely automates what a person could do mentally or manually and does not transform the nature of the claim into a technological process or practical application. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the amended claims do not include additional elements that meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is therefore maintained for claims 1 and 3-4.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. A vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising:
a server including a processor;
a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information;
and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server,
the processor is configured to
calculate a sum of forward parking events of the vehicle in a predetermined number of days based on the travel information,
acquire a first frequency by dividing the sum of forward parking events by the predetermined number of days,
and when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold, send first information on first equipment to the user terminal, the first equipment being configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and being mountable on the vehicle,
and the user terminal is configured to display the first information.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of calculating a sum of forward parking events, dividing the sum of forward parking events, and determining when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the area and adding up forward parking events, dividing the sum of the events, and deciding when the frequency is equal to or greater than a threshold. Notably, while the claim limitation states when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold, it is clear from the applicant’s specification that the frequency being equal to or greater than a threshold includes determining whether the frequency is equal to or greater than a threshold.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. A vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising:
a server including a processor;
a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information;
and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server,
the processor is configured to
calculate a sum of forward parking events of the vehicle in a predetermined number of days based on the travel information,
acquire a first frequency by dividing the sum of forward parking events by the predetermined number of days,
and when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold, send first information on first equipment to the user terminal, the first equipment being configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and being mountable on the vehicle,
and the user terminal is configured to display the first information.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “acquire a first frequency…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “send first information on first equipment to a first terminal, the first equipment being equipment that is configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and that is mountable on the first vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “the user terminal is configured to display the first information” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “A vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising: a server including a processor; a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information; and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server, the processor is configured to” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising: a server including a processor; a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information; and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server, the processor is configured to merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising: a server including a processor; a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information; and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server, the processor is configured to are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the calculating, acquiring, determining, sending, and displaying steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even 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.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “A vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising: a server including a processor; a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information; and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server, the processor is configured to” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquire a first frequency…”, “send first information on first equipment to a first terminal, the first equipment being equipment that is configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and that is mountable on the first vehicle”, and “the user terminal is configured to display the first information” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the calculating, acquiring, determining, sending, and displaying steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, such as the limitations in claim 4 that amount to insignificant extra solution activity using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above.
As such, claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (CN 114428916 A) in view of Komoguchi (US 20140015693 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, HE teaches A vehicle equipment recommendation system comprising: a server including a processor (See at least paragraph [n0126], “Please refer to Figure 15, which is a schematic diagram of a framework of one embodiment of the computer-readable storage medium of this application. The computer-readable storage medium 50 stores a computer program 500, which can be read by a computer and executed by a processor to implement the parking lot recommendation method mentioned in any of the above embodiments. The computer program 500 may be stored in the computer-readable storage medium 50 in the form of a software product, including several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) or a processor to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application. The computer-readable storage medium 50 with storage function can be any medium capable of storing program code, such as a USB flash drive, portable hard drive, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disk or optical disk, or a terminal device such as a computer, server, mobile phone, tablet, etc.”); a vehicle including a storage configured to store travel information, (See at least paragraph [n0040], “Please refer to Figure 1, which is a schematic diagram of the parking lot recommendation device. The parking lot recommendation device includes an in-vehicle operating device, a parking lot information device, and a service terminal. The parking lot information device has functions such as information display, data collection, and monitoring. Please refer to Figures 2-4. Figure 2 is a structural schematic diagram of the in-vehicle operating device in Figure 1, Figure 3 is a structural schematic diagram of the parking information device in Figure 1, and Figure 4 is a structural schematic diagram of the service terminal in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 2, the in-vehicle operating device is a small, intelligently controllable display screen, which includes two sub-components: the display screen and the GPS positioning system. The in-vehicle operating system can connect to a service terminal to obtain real-time data on the target parking lot and has built-in GPS navigation…As shown in Figure 4, the service terminal is a back-end service system, which is the information center for acquiring and storing parking information. It is used to connect and interact with in-vehicle operating devices and parking information devices. The service terminal includes two sub-components: a data storage and query system and a model training system. The model training system includes two sub-systems: a rule-making system and a computing system.”); and a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the travel information to the server (See at least paragraph [n0040], “Please refer to Figure 1, which is a schematic diagram of the parking lot recommendation device. The parking lot recommendation device includes an in-vehicle operating device, a parking lot information device, and a service terminal. The parking lot information device has functions such as information display, data collection, and monitoring. Please refer to Figures 2-4. Figure 2 is a structural schematic diagram of the in-vehicle operating device in Figure 1, Figure 3 is a structural schematic diagram of the parking information device in Figure 1, and Figure 4 is a structural schematic diagram of the service terminal in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 2, the in-vehicle operating device is a small, intelligently controllable display screen, which includes two sub-components: the display screen and the GPS positioning system. The in-vehicle operating system can connect to a service terminal to obtain real-time data on the target parking lot and has built-in GPS navigation…As shown in Figure 4, the service terminal is a back-end service system, which is the information center for acquiring and storing parking information. It is used to connect and interact with in-vehicle operating devices and parking information devices. The service terminal includes two sub-components: a data storage and query system and a model training system. The model training system includes two sub-systems: a rule-making system and a computing system.”), the processor is configured to calculate a sum of forward parking events of the vehicle in a predetermined number of days based on the travel information (See at least paragraph [n0055], “Specifically, in this embodiment, the step of obtaining the factor average value corresponding to the parking lot sample using factor values in step S11 of Figure 6 includes: obtaining the fourth ratio between the sum of all factor values of the parking lot sample belonging to the current time period and the number of factor values, and using the fourth ratio as the factor average value...Specifically, the historical parking data of each parking lot is categorized by weekdays (Monday to Sunday)…After the data is classified, the final step is to perform calculations…(2) Since there is a lot of historical data, that is, there are also a lot of calculated values of these three factors for a certain time period from Monday to Sunday. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the average value of these same type of factor data again. For example, since a parking lot opened, it has experienced a total of M Mondays. According to the calculation rule of (1), a certain time period on Monday will yield M values of parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate. Therefore, based on all historical data, the parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate for that time period on Monday should be the average value of the M parking space turnover rates, the average value of the M parking time consumption rates, and the average value of the M parking space saturation rates, respectively.”), acquire a first frequency by dividing the sum of forward parking events by the predetermined number of days, (See at least paragraph [n0055], “Specifically, in this embodiment, the step of obtaining the factor average value corresponding to the parking lot sample using factor values in step S11 of Figure 6 includes: obtaining the fourth ratio between the sum of all factor values of the parking lot sample belonging to the current time period and the number of factor values, and using the fourth ratio as the factor average value...Specifically, the historical parking data of each parking lot is categorized by weekdays (Monday to Sunday)…After the data is classified, the final step is to perform calculations…(2) Since there is a lot of historical data, that is, there are also a lot of calculated values of these three factors for a certain time period from Monday to Sunday. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the average value of these same type of factor data again. For example, since a parking lot opened, it has experienced a total of M Mondays. According to the calculation rule of (1), a certain time period on Monday will yield M values of parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate. Therefore, based on all historical data, the parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate for that time period on Monday should be the average value of the M parking space turnover rates, the average value of the M parking time consumption rates, and the average value of the M parking space saturation rates, respectively.” The system calculates an average by dividing a sum of parking values by a count day of instances, M Mondays, which corresponds to acquiring a frequency by dividing a summed number of vehicle parking events by a predetermined number of days.), and when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold (See at least paragraph [n0053], “In this embodiment, we will focus on three influencing factors: parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate. The following will explain these three indicators and the reasons for their selection. (1) Parking space turnover rate: This is the ratio of vehicles entering the parking lot to vehicles leaving the parking lot during a certain period of time. It reflects the vehicle flow situation in the parking lot during that period of time. The larger the ratio, the tighter the parking spaces are. As time goes by, the parking spaces tend to become saturated. By statistically analyzing the parking space turnover rate over a certain period, we can reflect the parking space shortage situation during that period.” The system determines a parking condition based on whether a calculated ratio is sufficiently large, which corresponds to determining when a calculated frequency is equal to or greater than a threshold.).
HE does not explicitly disclose, however, Komoguchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches send first information on first equipment the user terminal, the first equipment being configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and being mountable on the vehicle (See at least paragraph [0036], “The millimeter-wave radar 10 is placed at a predetermined position on the vehicle 100 (for example, incorporated into right and left side mirrors, a fender body, or a rear bumper of the vehicle 100), and detects an object present at the right or left laterally behind the vehicle 100. The millimeter-wave radar 10 radiates a millimeter wave (electromagnetic wave) in a lateral direction from the vehicle 100, and detects an object (another vehicle, a bicycle, a guardrail, a traffic sign, or the like) present in a detection range (in a radiation range of the electromagnetic wave) of the millimeter-wave radar 10” and paragraph [0042], “The notification unit 40 visually or aurally notifies a driver of the presence of an object. The notification unit 40 is a display device such as a warning lamp or an alert device such as a warning buzzer, for example. For example, based on an execution instruction of notification from the ECU 20, the warning lamp lights up and alert sound of the warning buzzer is outputted, and based on a stopping instruction of notification, the warning lamp is extinguished and alert sound of the warning buzzer is stopped.” Notifying the driver via a display device/alert device corresponds to sending information to a user terminal.); and the user terminal is configured to display the first information (See at least paragraph [0042], “The notification unit 40 visually or aurally notifies a driver of the presence of an object. The notification unit 40 is a display device such as a warning lamp or an alert device such as a warning buzzer, for example. For example, based on an execution instruction of notification from the ECU 20, the warning lamp lights up and alert sound of the warning buzzer is outputted, and based on a stopping instruction of notification, the warning lamp is extinguished and alert sound of the warning buzzer is stopped.”);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of HE with the teachings of Komoguchi such that the parking recommendation system of HE is further configured to send first information on first equipment the user terminal, the first equipment being configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and being mountable on the vehicle and the user terminal is configured to display the first information, as taught by Komoguchi (See paragraph [0036], [0042].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing notification accuracy, as taught by Komoguchi (See paragraph [0003].).
Regarding Claim 3, HE and Komoguchi teach The vehicle equipment recommendation system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. HE does not explicitly disclose, however, Komoguchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first equipment is configured to detect a moving object approaching from right or left and give an alert when the vehicle is reversing (See at least paragraph [0034], “Hereinafter, with reference to the drawings, a rear cross traffic alert device according to one embodiment of the present invention will be described. It is noted that the rear cross traffic alert device according to the present embodiment is provided on a vehicle, detects an object (another vehicle, etc.) in a right/left area laterally behind the vehicle, and performs notification of the presence of the object in a notification area. FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the rear cross traffic alert device 1 according to the embodiment of the present invention”, paragraph [0036], “The millimeter-wave radar 10 is placed at a predetermined position on the vehicle 100 (for example, incorporated into right and left side mirrors, a fender body, or a rear bumper of the vehicle 100), and detects an object present at the right or left laterally behind the vehicle 100. The millimeter-wave radar 10 radiates a millimeter wave (electromagnetic wave) in a lateral direction from the vehicle 100, and detects an object (another vehicle, a bicycle, a guardrail, a traffic sign, or the like) present in a detection range (in a radiation range of the electromagnetic wave) of the millimeter-wave radar 10”, and paragraph [0042], “The notification unit 40 visually or aurally notifies a driver of the presence of an object. The notification unit 40 is a display device such as a warning lamp or an alert device such as a warning buzzer, for example. For example, based on an execution instruction of notification from the ECU 20, the warning lamp lights up and alert sound of the warning buzzer is outputted, and based on a stopping instruction of notification, the warning lamp is extinguished and alert sound of the warning buzzer is stopped.” The system detects objects approaching from the left or rear while reversing and alerts the driver using visual or audible signals; the equipment assists with reversing operations by warning of cross traffic.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of HE with the teachings of Komoguchi such that the parking recommendation system of HE is further configured to send first information on first equipment the user terminal, the first equipment being configured to assist in a driving operation related to reversing and being mountable on the vehicle, the user terminal is configured to display the first information, and the first equipment is equipment configured to detect a moving object approaching from right or left and give an alert when the first vehicle is reversing, as taught by Komoguchi (See paragraph [0034], [0036], [0042].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing notification accuracy, as taught by Komoguchi (See paragraph [0003].).
Regarding Claim 4, HE and Komoguchi teach The vehicle equipment recommendation system according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. HE teaches wherein the predetermined number of days is between five and thirty (See at least paragraph [n0055], “Specifically, in this embodiment, the step of obtaining the factor average value corresponding to the parking lot sample using factor values in step S11 of Figure 6 includes: obtaining the fourth ratio between the sum of all factor values of the parking lot sample belonging to the current time period and the number of factor values, and using the fourth ratio as the factor average value...Specifically, the historical parking data of each parking lot is categorized by weekdays (Monday to Sunday)…After the data is classified, the final step is to perform calculations…(2) Since there is a lot of historical data, that is, there are also a lot of calculated values of these three factors for a certain time period from Monday to Sunday. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the average value of these same type of factor data again. For example, since a parking lot opened, it has experienced a total of M Mondays. According to the calculation rule of (1), a certain time period on Monday will yield M values of parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate. Therefore, based on all historical data, the parking space turnover rate, parking time consumption rate, and parking space saturation rate for that time period on Monday should be the average value of the M parking space turnover rates, the average value of the M parking time consumption rates, and the average value of the M parking space saturation rates, respectively.” The system categorizes historical parking data by weekdays from Monday to Sunday, which corresponds to using a predetermined number of days within the range of five to thirty days.)
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 JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666