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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2024 and 07/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 2019/0122553 A1) in view of Uppal et al. (US 2014/0266801 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 2024/0194071 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8-9 and 16-17, Sakuma discloses a method of assisting a driver in finding an available parking spot by estimating parking spot availability (e.g. Abstract & [0089]), a non-transitory data storage medium comprising programming instructions (e.g. [0090]), and a system for estimating parking spot availability (e.g. Abstract), the system comprising:
a plurality of image sensors (e.g. Fig. 2: 170 camera on each vehicle within parking facility) mounted to a plurality of vehicles (e.g. Fig. 1: 100) and configured to generate images associated with an environment about the plurality of vehicles (e.g. [0027]: obtain image regarding vacant parking spaces from each vehicle in the parking facility); and one or more processors (e.g. Fig. 2: 181) in communication with the plurality of image sensors and programmed to: execute image processing to determine a presence of parking spots in the images and whether other vehicles are located in the parking spots (e.g. [0053]); determine an occupancy status of each parking spot over time based upon the image processing (e.g. [0057-0060]); store the occupancy status of each parking spot in storage to yield a historical occupancy status (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0063]); define a first set of the parking spots as being located within a first common geographical region (e.g. Figs. 6-7: searching range); and display the estimated occupancy status of the first parking spot on a display device associated with a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (e.g. [0078-0081, 0086]: display search result).
Sakuma fails to disclose, but Uppal teaches:
determine an average parking spot availability (e.g. [0041]: average purchase time corresponds to historical parking stall availability) of the first set of parking spots based on the historical occupancy status associated with the first set of parking spots (e.g. [0041]: historical occupancy); generate an estimated occupancy status of a first parking spot of the first set of parking spots, wherein the estimated occupancy status is based on a last-known occupancy status of the first parking spot and the average parking spot availability associated with the first set of parking spots (e.g. [0041]: probable score of parking stalls based on expiration time corresponds to current, i.e. last known, parking spot occupancy).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakuma with the teachings of Uppal to improve accuracy on determining parking spot vacancy by utilizing last known and historical data.
Sakuma and Uppal in combination fails to disclose, but Zhang teaches identify a first particular parking spot within the first set of parking spots, and generate an estimated occupancy status of the first particular parking spot (e.g. [0065-0073]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakuma and Uppal with the teachings of Zhang to improve accuracy of parking area recommendation (e.g. Zhang: [0005]).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Sakuma discloses define a second set of the parking spots as being located within a second common geographical region; and determine a weighted average parking spot availability of the second set of parking spots based on the historical occupancy status associated with the second set of parking spots; wherein the weighted average parking spot availability of the second set of parking spots is different than the average parking spot availability of the first set of parking spots (e.g. [0086]: different regions with different numbers of vacant parking spaces).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Sakuma discloses determine a plurality of average parking spot availabilities of the first set of parking spots for a corresponding plurality of time windows, each time window having a different average parking spot availability (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0067-0069]: based on different request times, different search results for different time windows vacant parking space predicted to be available will be provided).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Sakuma discloses the plurality of time windows includes a first time window, and wherein the estimated occupancy status is based upon the average parking spot availability corresponding to the first time window (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0067-0069]: based on different request times, different search results for different time windows vacant parking space predicted to be available will be provided).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Sakuma discloses the first time window corresponds with a current time (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0067-0069]: based on different request times, different search results for different time windows vacant parking space predicted to be available will be provided) in which the estimated occupancy status is displayed on the display device (e.g. [0078-0081, 0086]: display search result).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Uppal teaches each time window corresponds to a time of day (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0067-0069]: based on different request times, different search results for different time windows vacant parking space predicted to be available will be provided), a week of the year, or a month of the year.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Sakuma discloses the estimated occupancy status of the first particular parking spot is displayed on the display device along with a location of the first particular parking spot relative to a current location of the first vehicle (e.g. [0078-0081, 0086]: display search result).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights