DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to RCE filed 1/22/2026.
2. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, 18-24, 26-30 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-9, 11-16, 18-24, 26-30
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, 18-24, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 16 is directed to a system – each of which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter).
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Claim 1
Abstract Idea / Insignificant Activity
receiving an account registration associated with a user account from a user computing device, the user account corresponding to a first vehicle;
Insignificant data gathering activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
receiving information identifying the login of the user account from the user computing device;
Insignificant data gathering activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors located proximate to a plurality of parking spaces, the sensors including emissive and non-emissive sensors;
Insignificant data gathering activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
determining, based on the sensor data, occupancy information identifying whether each of the parking spaces is occupied with a vehicle;
Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
analyzing statistical demand information, statistical loss information or statistical damage information about the parking spaces from at least one of reservation records, insurances records, vehicle loss records, or vehicle body damage records statistics;
Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
transmitting parking space information of a plurality of parking spaces to the user computing device, wherein the parking space information comprises a size, type or organization name of the parking spaces or comprises charging information, the statistical demand information, the statistical loss information or the statistical damage information about the parking spaces;
Insignificant data gathering activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
presents a graphical depiction of at least a portion of the parking space information, wherein the graphical depiction comprises:
individual representations of individual parking spaces in a geographic area,
each representation being adjusted in presentation based on an assignment of an associated parking space as being occupied, reserved, or available,
wherein each representation associated with occupied parking spaces are shaded or highlighted in a first manner and each representation associated with reserved parking spaces are shaded or highlighted in a second manner, and
each representation including the textual description of statistical demand information, the statistical loss information, and/or the statistical damage information, the textual description being automatically selected from a plurality of textual descriptions based on comparisons of the statistical demand information, the statistical loss information, and/or the statistical damage information with a plurality of threshold demand levels,
wherein the interactive user interface is configured to present detailed parking space information for each parking space in response to user input directed to the parking space, and
Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
responds to selection of a particular parking space as a reserved parking space for the user account, wherein the particular parking space is represented as being available in the graphical depiction, wherein the graphical depiction is updated to present the particular parking space as being reserved, wherein the reserved parking space is associated with one or more parking space characteristics,
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Commercial/Legal Interactions, Managing Personal Behavior)
and wherein upon selection of the reserved parking space the interactive user interface updates to mark a location associated with the reserved parking space on the graphical depiction, and
wherein upon determining updates to the parking space information, the graphical depiction is updated;
Mental Process
receiving, from the user computing device, a reservation message and an insurance message, the reservation message indicating the reserved parking space among the one or more parking spaces, and the insurance message indicating an insurance coverage, wherein the interactive user interface includes a plurality of options associated with insurance coverage, and wherein the interactive user interface receives selection of a subset of the options, the subset including a damage option, and wherein the system is configured to enforce compliance with the selected subset based on matching the first vehicle to the reserved parking space;
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
determining an insurance period related to a reserved period of the reserved parking space;
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
making a count in time to determine whether the insurance period is expired;
Mental Process
receiving sensor data from a subset of the plurality of sensors located proximate to the reserved parking space;
Insignificant data gathering activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
determining, based on the sensor data, that a second vehicle is improperly located at the reserved parking space;
Mental Process
selecting an updated reserved parking space, wherein the selection is based on the one or more parking characteristics,
Mental Process
wherein the selection triggers, via a replacement notice output by the device an update to the user computing device regarding the updated parking space, the update reflecting detailed parking space information for access via the interactive user interface, the detailed parking space information indicating at least a location within the graphical depiction, and wherein the replacement notice avoids required access to the interactive user interface to select a new parking space;
Mental Process
determining, based in part on the sensor data, whether the first vehicle is in the reserved parking space;
after determining that the first vehicle is not in the reserved parking space after the reserved period has started, transmitting a reservation reminder to the user computing device;
after determining that the vehicle is in the reserved parking space is damaged, determining whether the first vehicle is damaged, and outputting a claim notice to the user computing device when the first vehicle is damaged;
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
determining, based on monitoring the sensor data, whether the first vehicle in the reserved parking space leaves the updated reserved parking space before the reserved period is expired, and wherein the interactive user interface:
Mental Process
responds to selection of an option confirming that the first vehicle is authorized to leave, the authorization indicating that the user has driven the first vehicle from the reserved parking space;
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
determining when the insurance period is expired or the sensor data indicates that the vehicle in the reserved parking space leaves the reserved parking space before the reserved period ends, that the vehicle in the reserved parking space or leaving the reserved parking space is the first vehicle; and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
when the vehicle in the reserved parking space or leaving the reserved parking space is determined to be the first vehicle making an insurance expiration record corresponding to the insurance message.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
when the vehicle in the reserved parking space or leaving the reserved parking space is determined to not be the first vehicle, outputting a claim settlement notice to the user computing device;
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
generating a claim settlement record based on the claim settlement notice, wherein the claim settlement record comprises at least one of: the reservation message, the insurance message, and information indicating if the first vehicle matches the insurance coverage; and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
settling an insurance claim based on the claim settlement record.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Examiner notes that graphical depiction of parking spaces in a geographic area (as shown in Fig. 1) and user interfaces (as shown in Fig. 3) can be accomplished by drawing individual parking spaces on a piece of paper using a pencil or pen and marking respective space to indicated vehicle theft, damage, insurance, etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
935
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
631
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, a[re] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”); Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that “humans have always performed these functions”).
Examiner further notes that the user interface has been described at a high level of generality in the specification and drawings. As per Para [0025], the user can select one parking space 32 as a reserved parking space in the schematic graphic display block 42, input a reservation period and an insurance period, and select one or more desired insurance coverages. This is no different from providing the driver with a hand drawn of map of available insurance periods and the user selecting any one of the available spots. As per Para [0040], when a user points a cursor to the icon of a parking space 32 or touches the icon, the system may provide the user with the detailed parking space information of this parking space 32 and may also provide a relative reservation button. This is no different from providing the driver with a hand drawn of map of available parking spots.
Representing and adjusting the assignment of parking spaces accompanied by textual description of statistical data (as shown in Fig. 5) is a Mental Process involving observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion that can again be sketched out on a piece of paper.
PNG
media_image3.png
568
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The diagrams of Fig. 3 and 5 can be easily reproduced on a piece of paper. Presenting a graphical depiction of a parking space is not technical improvement but merely a digital representation of a paper diagram. Therefore, it is not clear what technical improvement has been achieved in the invention other than replacing manual hand drawn maps with computer interface.
Courts have consistently held that the mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology (Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services). See Versata Development Group v. SAP America (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”); See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Symantec”) (“With the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”).
A human parking services representative can keep track of available parking spots and reservations including spots with high, medium or low demand using no more than a hand drawn sketch on a piece of paper. Hence, the claim limitations also describe a method of managing interactions between people which also falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Managing parking reservation is a Commercial/Legal Interaction between the vehicle driver and the parking management service. Offering insurance coverage is also a Commercial/Legal interaction. Hence, the claims also fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence, based on the above analysis, independent claims 1 and 16 recite a combination of abstract ideas. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
See also previous PTAB Decision: Ex parte YING-TSUN SU, Appeal 2022-000145, Pages 11-12 (“Accordingly, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites a way of reserving a parking space acceptable to a user based on parking space information, which constitutes managing personal behavior, one of certain methods of organizing human activity that are judicial exceptions.
In addition, the claimed steps above highlighted in italics mimic human thought processes of selecting certain information over others, i.e., evaluation, and creating perhaps with paper and pencil, graphic data interpretation perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts to be abstract. Thus, for example, the Federal Circuit has held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and reporting the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (identifying the abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the realm of abstract ideas)”)
The dependent claims limit the abstract idea to – determining available parking spaces, types of parking spaces, sending reservation reminder message, and statistical demand identifier – which constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, the claims recite a combination of judicial exceptions.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP § 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine –see MPEP § 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP § 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 – see MPEP §2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h)
Additional recited in the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: user computing device; interactive user interface; plurality of sensors including emissive and non-emissive sensors; and car-parking device.
The specification does not mention any user computing device; however, based on para [0020] of the published application (“As shown in step S110, the management device 24 wiredly or wirelessly receives a login message from a client end that is, for example but not limited to, a mobile phone, a notebook, a tablet computer, a vehicle navigation system or a desk-top computer. A user can link to the management device 24 and send the login message to the management device 24 through applications or browsers executed on the client end. The management device 24 provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for the user to register, log in or reserve any services supported by the management system.”), user computing device appears to refer to a mobile phone of a user who is trying to park a vehicle.
As per Fig. 3 and para [0025] of the published application (“In an embodiment, a user interface is illustrated by referring to FIG. 3, which is a schematic view of a user interface 40. The user interface 40 includes a schematic graphic display block 42 for displaying a schematic graphic that shows locations of the parking spaces 32. The user can select one parking space 32 as a reserved parking space in the schematic graphic display block 42, input a reservation period and an insurance period, and select one or more desired insurance coverages. The schematic display block 42 shows the whole or a part of the parking spaces 32 in the parking lot 30. The parking spaces 32 are, for example but not limited to, roadside parking spaces, so the schematic display block 42 shows the whole or partial schematic graphic of a road and shows these parking spaces 32 along the roadside.”) the interface appears to be a generic interface which displays location of parking spaces.
With respect to sensors, as per para [0016] of the published application (“The management system includes a plurality of sensors (also known as detectors) 22 and a management device 24. The sensors 22 can be disposed at a plurality of parking spaces 32 in a parking lot 30. The sensor 22 can be, for example but not limited to, an infrared sensor, a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a semiconductor sensor or a small camera, which is capable of sensing whether the corresponding parking space 32 is occupied. The semiconductor sensor can be carried out by, for example but not limited to, a photovoltaic cell or a light emitting diode (LED). An infrared sensor as a sensor 22 includes, for example, an infrared emitter and an image receiver, and the infrared emitter and the image receiver are paired and near to each other. The infrared emitter emits infrared light for the image receiver to receive. According to the output of the image receiver in the sensor 22, the management device 24 can determine whether the infrared light emitted by the infrared emitter is blocked or not, to determine the existence of any object in the detection range of the sensor 22. If an object blocks the infrared light emitted by the sensor 22, the management device 24 will consider that the parking space 32 corresponding to the sensor 22 is occupied.”), the sensors include infra red sensor, a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a semiconductor sensor or a small camera, which is capable of sensing whether the corresponding parking space is occupied.
Finally, with respect to the “car-parking device” recited in claims 16-30, the specification does not mention this anywhere. However, based on the limitations – “car-parking device outputs a claims settlement notice to the user computing device” (claim 17), “wherein the car-parking device receives a location designation message from the user computing device (claim 19), “the car-parking device deletes the reservation message and the insurance message” (claim 23), “the car-parking device outputs a reservation reminder to the user computing device” (claim 24) – it appears that the car-parking device of claims 16-30 corresponds to the management device of Fig. 1. The specification does not disclose any structure for the management device. The management device is wiredly or wirelessly connected to the sensors and reads the outputs of the sensors, and includes a communication module to access data (Para [0018]); receives a login message from a client device (Para [0020]); provides a graphical user interface for the user to register, log in or reserve any services (Para [0020]); manages some information about every registered account which relates to a vehicle plate number (Para [0021]); collects all reservation, insurance, vehicle loss records (Para [0037]); displays statistics according to time slices (Para [0038]); etc. Based on the disclosure from the published application specification, the management device may reasonably be interpreted as a generic computer system which provides customer account access and administers parking reservation information.
The remaining additional elements constitute Insignificant Extra Solution Activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)) or Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving information identifying a login of a user account from a user computing device, …
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors …
transmitting parking space information of a plurality of parking spaces to the user computing device …
causing presentation, via the user computing device, of an interactive user interface, wherein the interactive user interface: presents a graphical depiction of the parking space information …
receiving, from the user computing device, a reservation message and an insurance message …
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors located proximate to the reserved parking space …
wherein the selection triggers an update, via a replacement notice output by the device to the user computing device …
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described “the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’” 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Here, Examiner finds that the following claim limitations:
each representation being adjusted in presentation based on an assignment of an associated parking space as being occupied, reserved, or available,
wherein each representation associated with occupied parking spaces are shaded or highlighted in a first manner and each representation associated with reserved parking spaces are shaded or highlighted in a second manner, and
each representation including a textual description of statistical demand, the textual description being automatically selected from a plurality of textual descriptions based on comparisons of the statistical demand with a plurality of threshold demand levels,
wherein the interactive user interface is configured to present detailed parking space information for each parking space in response to user input directed to the parking space, and
wherein the graphical depiction is updated to present the particular parking space as being reserved, wherein the reserved parking space is associated with one or more parking space characteristics,
and wherein upon selection of the reserved parking space the interactive user interface updates to mark a location associated with the reserved parking space on the graphical depiction, and
wherein upon determining updates to the parking space information, the graphical depiction is updated;
wherein the selection triggers, via a replacement notice output by the device an update to the user computing device regarding the updated parking space, the update reflecting detailed parking space information for access via the interactive user interface, the detailed parking space information indicating at least a location within the graphical depiction, and wherein the replacement notice avoids required access to the interactive user interface to select a new parking space;
have been recited in a result-focused and functional way such they cover any solution to an identified problem.
Each of the functions is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. All purported inventive concepts reside in how the “each representation being adjusted,” “each representation … shaded or highlighted,” “updates to mark a location,” “trigger … replacement notice … avoid required access to the interactive user interface,” etc., are technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically achieves the result which neither the specification or the drawings shed any light on. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019] (“i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);”)
See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”); see Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 952-53, 954-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Instead of focusing on the technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example, claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”).
Examiner thus finds that the additional elements have been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations – receiving login information, receiving sensor data, determining, transmitting parking space information, causing presentation of user interface, receiving reservation message, determining insurance period, making time count, receiving sensor data, determining improperly parked vehicle, selecting updated parking space, triggering replacement notice, determining whether first vehicle leaves parking space before reservation expired, respond to selection of option confirming that vehicle is authorized to leave, determining when insurance period is expired, and making an insurance expiration record – amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas such as – managing vehicle parking reservation and insurance information – that merely use computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
Reevaluating the additional elements from the independent claims, Examiner finds that they constitute Insignificant Extra Solution Activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)) or Instructions to Apply the Judicial Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving information identifying a login of a user account from a user computing device, …
receiving sensor data …
transmitting parking space information of a plurality of parking spaces to the user computing device …
causing presentation, via the user computing device, of an interactive user interface, wherein the interactive user interface: presents a graphical depiction of the parking space information …
receiving, from the user computing device, a reservation message and an insurance message …
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors located proximate to the reserved parking space …
wherein the selection triggers an update, via a replacement notice output by the device to the user computing device …
See MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019] (Mere Data Gathering: (“iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
See MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”).
As discussed in Prong Two above, the use of generic computing devices and sensors to perform the abstract idea of managing vehicle parking reservation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the claims fail to transform the abstract idea of managing vehicle parking reservation and insurance information on graphical user interface into significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that the human mind is not equipped to “receive account registration … from a user computing device,” “receive information identifying a long of the user account,” “receive sensor data from a plurality of sensors,” “cause presentation … of an interactive user interface,” “update a graphical depiction on a user computing device.”
In response, Examiner points out, as per the rejection on pages 22-23, all of the above limitations constitute collecting or presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019] ((3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
Applicant argues, citing Core Wireless, that claim 1 improves the technical field of display information in a user computing device.
In response, Examiner repeats arguments from the previous Examiner’s Answer, pages 5-6 that unlike the claims of Core Wireless, the pending claims do not recite displaying an application summary window that was not only reachable directly from the main menu, but could also display a limited list of selectable functions while the application was in an un-launched state or an improvement in the functioning of computers. The graphical depiction of occupied and unoccupied parking spots can be drawn on a piece of paper and marked, shaded or highlighted with a pencil, pen or colored highlighters. This is not even remotely comparable to the Core Wireless invention of providing limited information summary functions suitable for a mobile device. The Core Wireless invention was fundamentally directed to obtaining a high-level summary information of the contents of applications displayed on an interface technical improvement in graphical user interface.
From the Core Wireless decision:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index, as argued by LG on appeal.3 Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the ’476 patent requires “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
In stark contrast to the above functionality, the present invention and claims are primarily focused on observing vehicles parking or leaving, maintaining a running list of parking reservations, keeping track of unoccupied and occupied parking spots, analyzing statistical demand, determining whether insurance has expired – none of which is even remotely comparable to the highlight function, app snapshot, and summary window features of Core Wireless. Applicant’s invention is directed to guiding drivers to find a parking spot and recited limitations that describes Certain Methods of Human Activity as opposed to any improvement to any computing device. The claims do not even purport to improvement in graphical user interfaces and the applicant cannot credibly assert that the present invention is directed to improving graphical user interfaces. For the above reasons, the Core Wireless analogy is not applicable.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Previously Addressed Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem as in Contour IP Holdings LLC v. GoPro because claim 1 allows for more personalized parking results and automated claim settlement generation than manual methods.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive.
Claim 11 of Contour IP Holdings could not be more different from those in the present application.
11. A portable, point of view digital video camera,
comprising:
a lens;
an image sensor configured to capture light propagating through the lens and representing a scene, and produce real time video image data of the scene;
a wireless connection protocol device configured to send real time image content by wireless transmission directly to and receive control signals or data signals by wireless transmission directly from a personal portable computing device executing an application; and
a camera processor configured to:
receive the video image data directly or indirectly from the image sensor,
generate from the video image data a first image data stream and a second image data stream, wherein the second image data stream is a higher quality than the first image data stream,
cause the wireless connection protocol device to send the first image data stream directly to the personal portable computing device for display on a display of the personal portable computing device, wherein the personal portable computing device generates the control signals for the video camera, and wherein the control signals comprise at least one of a frame alignment, multi-camera synchronization, remote file access, and a resolution setting, and at least one of a lighting setting, a color setting, and an audio setting,
receive the control signals from the personal portable computing device, and
adjust one or more settings of the video camera based at least in part on at least a portion of the control signals received from the personal portable computing device.
’954 patent, 30:57–31:24.
None of the recited steps in claim 11 of Contour – generating image data stream of differing qualities, generating control signals, adjusting video camera setting based on received control signals – can be carried out in the human mind or can be considered certain methods of organizing human activity in contrast to the applicant’s claims.
The Federal Circuit emphasized that the combination of elements in Contour’s claims – parallel recording of high-quality and low-quality video streams, along with the wireless transmission of the lower-quality stream for real-time adjustments – represented a specific solution to a technological problem. In reaching this conclusion, the court looked at the specification and observed that “[t]he written description discloses improving POV camera technology through specific means of generating high-and low-quality video streams in parallel and transferring a low-quality video stream to a remote device, and the claims reflect this improvement.” The court found that the patented technology allowed for real-time video adjustments and control, solving the problem of wireless bandwidth limitations without sacrificing high-quality footage. The court also noted that the claims were not directed to abstract results or effects but to a specific process for achieving those results, which is key to passing Alice Step 1.
The Federal Circuit found that:
Here, when read as a whole, claim 11 is directed to a specific means that improves the relevant technology. Claim 11 recites an improved POV camera through its combination of claim limitations and requirement that the claimed POV camera processor be configured to record low and high-quality data streams in parallel, followed by the low-quality data stream’s wireless transfer to a remote device. With the claimed POV camera, a user can remotely view and adjust the desired recording in real time, with the elimination of bandwidth limitations on wireless data transfer. See ’954 patent, 20:9–16. The claims thus require specific, technological means – parallel data stream recording with the low-quality recording wirelessly transferred to a remote device – that in turn provide a technological improvement to the real time viewing capabilities of a POV camera’s recordings on a remote device.
In contrast, applicant’s claims are not directed to specific means for improving any technology but instead are directed to managing parking reservation which can be done using pencil and paper. Unlike the technical steps of ContourIP, the claimed steps – providing a parking management service with information that enables a driver to make a parking reservation, determine parking insurance corresponding to the period of reservation, providing a claim notice when a vehicle is damaged, and settling an insurance claim when a vehicle leaves a reserved spot – do nothing to improve any computer or sensor technology. Applicant’s claims merely use sensor to keep track of vehicles entering or reserving parking spots and use the computer device to send notifications. Unlike Contour IP which involved parallel recording of high-quality and low-quality video streams, along with the wireless transmission of the lower-quality stream for real-time adjustments, applicant’s claims merely use sensor and device as tools to implement an abstract idea rather than improve a technology such as real-time viewing capabilities of a camera recording on a remote device. Whereas, claim 11 of the ’954 patent describes more than wireless data transfer within a particular technological environment. Instead, claim 11 enables the claimed POV camera to “operate differently than it otherwise could,” by both recording multiple video streams in parallel and wirelessly transferring only one video stream, a lower quality stream, to a remote device, nothing in the applicant’s invention or claims leads the camera or sensor to operate differently than it otherwise could.
For the above reasons, applicant’s invocation of Contour IP is unavailing.
Applicant argues that similar to the claims of Weisner v Google, claim 1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea because claim 1 allows for more personalized parking results and claim notice generation than manual methods. Applicant argues that via sensor monitoring, the application determines when a vehicle leaves a reserved sport or there is a vehicle loss. Applicant argues that Fig. 3 depicts an interactive user interface including user selection of options for insurance coverage including vehicle body destruction or damage which can be incorporated into the outputted claim notice.
Examiner finds the above arguments unpersuasive.
In Weisner, four patents were analyzed. In applying step one of the Alice framework, the Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly determined determined that claims in two of the patents (’202 and ’910) were directed to the abstract idea of “collect[ing] information on a user’s movements and location history [and] electronically record[ing] that data.” Weisner, 51 F.4th at 1082 (brackets in original) (quoting Weisner v. Google LLC, 551 F. Supp. 3d 334, 339 (SDNY 2021)). Putting it more simply, the Federal Circuit determined that “the claims are directed to creating a digital travel log.” Id. In applying step two, the Federal Circuit “agree[d] with the district court that these claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea of digitizing a travel log using conventional components.” Id. at 1084.
With regard to claims in the other two patents (‘905 and ‘911) at issue in Weisner, the Federal Circuit determined that they also were directed to an abstract idea. However, in applying step two of the Alice framework, the Federal Circuit “conclude[d] that the claims’ specificity as to the mechanism through which they achieve improved search results … is sufficient. [T]hese claims … concern a new technique for prioritizing the results of the conventional search.” Id. at 1085-86. In view of the foregoing, we do not agree with Appellant that the use, rather than merely the display, of data establishes an inventive concept. (See Req. Reh’g 6.). The Court found that the claims in Weisner that were determined to recite patent-eligible subject matter “provide a solution to an Internet-centric problem regarding web searches, allowing for more personalized search results than conventional methods.” Weisner, 51 F.4th at 1087-88.
However, Examiner finds that in the present application, claim 1 is more akin to the ’202 and ’910 patents of Weisner in that they are merely directed to collecting information on movement and location history of vehicles in a parking spot and merely used generic features to accomplish such data gathering. Unlike the ‘905 and ‘911 patents of Weisner, neither claim 1 nor the specification describes a new technique for prioritizing the results of a search. Whereas, Weisner patents ’202 and ’910 were found to plausibly provide a solution to an Internet-centric problem regarding web searches, allowing for more personalized search results than conventional methods, claim 1 of the present application is primarily directed to keeping a record of description of available parking spaces, their statistical demand, and identification of vehicles occupying parking spaces along with their insurance information – all of which can be accomplished on a piece of paper. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known.”). Unlike Weisner patents ’202 and ’910, claim 1 of present information does not bring about technical improvement akin to prioritizing results of a search based on a more personalized search. For the parking services administration to determine whether a vehicle is stolen (para [0028]) may be of help to the owner whose vehicle has been stolen and to law enforcement but it does nothing to improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 has been amended to recite the flow of data and specific technical means which enable the reduction in required access to interactive user interface e.g., outputting of replacement notice by the device to an end-user device.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because outputting a replacement notice to a user computing device is mere insignificant extra solution activity and not evidence of technical improvement.
Applicant argues that the user may view more detailed information via the user interface including location, availability and statistical demand.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because, as in Trading Technologies, providing the parking management service with more information about location, availability and demand may enable a driver to find a parking spot but it does nothing to improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues, citing Para [0031], that monitoring sensor information enables a determination as to an authorized or non-authorized leaving the spot.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because obtaining a confirmation inquiring is mere Insignificant Data Gathering Activity; in addition, this is Interaction Between People and therefore Certain Methods of Human Activity.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Previously Addressed Arguments
Examiner further notes that the user interface has been described at a high level of generality (See Fig. 3) and is thus abstract. As noted above, the entire diagram of Fig. 3 can be easily reproduced on a piece of paper. Presenting a graphical depiction of a parking space is not technical improvement but merely a digital representation of a paper diagram. Therefore, it is not clear what technical improvement has been achieved in the invention other than replacing manual hand drawn maps with computer interface.
As in Electric Power v. Alstom, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas. Merely reciting the steps of receiving, marking and updating parking space information, by itself, does not transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and evaluation. The claims do not purport to improve a computer or a device. The focus of the claims is not on any improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use sensor as tools.
Claim 1 is not directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor is claim 1 directed to a particular machine or transformation. Nor does that claim add any other meaningful limitations for the purposes of the analysis under Section 101. MPEP §§ 2106.05 (b), (c), (e). Accordingly, Examiner finds that claim 1 does not any additional elements to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance.
Last but not the least, the final limitation of making an insurance expiration message when vehicle leaves a parking space – has no applicability because there is no concept of short-term parking space insurance in the United States. In the United States, almost all states require drivers to carry mandatory liability automobile insurance coverage so that the driver can cover the cost of damage to a third person or property in the event of an accident. In the handful of states that do not mandate vehicle liability insurance, drivers are required to satisfy personal responsibility requirement. The situation described in the claims is unlikely to arise here.
Examiner also notes that penalties for not purchasing insurance vary by state, but often include a substantial fine, license and/or registration suspension or revocation, and possible jail time. Insurance companies that have issued mandatory liability policies, always keep track of whether drivers have renewed their policies. There are no legal, commercial or technical problems that the claimed invention is designed to solve.
Appellant argues that in contrast with Electric Power where “detecting and analyzing events” was used to “merely display event analysis,” the claimed limitation of “triggering an update to a user computing device … the selection avoiding required access to the interactive user interface” the information used by a sensor is clearly changed from mere information to a usable real-world spot which will be driven by a person.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because Appellant has failed to explain why sending updated information to a driver – to avoid parking spot A and instead, say, select newly available parking spot B – takes the claimed limitations outside of the realm of collecting and analyzing data and/or Insignificant data gathering activities and gives rise to a patent eligible invention.
See Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”) (“The claims of the ‘999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly.”)
See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. Apr 30, 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26–39, not on improving computers or technology.”).
Similar to TT v IBG, any purported improvement in the claims is in the judicial exception itself and not in the technology. Enabling a driver to obtain updated ‘information’ about which parking spot to avoid may be of use to the driver and the passengers in saving precious time at a parking location but it does not improve any computers or technology.
The claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Hence, Examiner notes that the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appellant analogizes the claims to the P&L values of Trading Technologies v. CQG.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive.
In the method claimed in TT v CQG, “bid and asked prices were displayed dynamically along the static display, and the system pairs orders with the static display of prices and prevents order entry at a changed price.” The court determined that “[t]he claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art” of graphical user interface devices.
In contrast here, the claims are not directed to an improved interface. Appellant’s invention does not resolve a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art of graphical user interface devices. This is not improving an existing interface but merely using a generic GUI to track car parking information and sending updates to a driver to avoid certain parking spots. Hence, TT v CQG is unavailing here.
Examiner also finds Appellant’s reliance on Core Wireless to be misplaced. In Core Wireless, an application summary window was accessible from the menu. It listed a limited set of data that was selectable to launch a respective application to enable the data to be seen in an application, and a summary window was displayed while the applications were in unlaunched states. Unlike the claims of Core Wireless, Appellant’s claims do not recite displaying an application summary window that was not only reachable directly from the main menu, but could also display a limited list of selectable functions while the application was in an un-launched state or an improvement in the functioning of computers. As noted in the Final Rejection, the present claims describe a very generic interface (See Figs. 1, 3, 5) which can be drawn on a piece of paper and cannot purport to provide technical improvement similar to the variable interface display functionality of Core Wireless, let alone improve an existing interface.
See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”).
See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, is insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality.).
For the above reasons, claims are patent ineligible under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692