DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, & 9-31 of U.S. Application No. 17/076323 filed on 11/21/2025 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed11/21/2025. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, 17-20, & 22-29 are presently amended. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claims 1-7, & 9-31 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: the amendments to the claims do not overcome the previous 35 USC § 101 rejection. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Per the MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception, the courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Examiner interprets that the processors and the network interfaces and the server are applying instructions in order to reach the end result of detecting a parking violation. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) after the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)). The mere fact the server is remote from the location of the mobile parking enforcement devices does not change the fact it is still a generic computer including instructions to implement an abstract idea. Further the server is a computer that is known for storing data in general. The fact the claim mentions that the parking data is stored for later use is not meaningful to the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that data that is sent to the server is stored and when needed, the device reaches out to the server to retrieve the previously stored information. Therefore, the abstract idea being performed on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Further Per the MPEP 2106.05(g) based on the examples given by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as: “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions”, “Consulting and updating an activity log” and other examples. These examples are court decisions that were considered mere data gathering and further outputting the result which is similar to what the claim set describes. The claim set describes a device that receives license plate data at different times and checks at another point in time, the same data for a parking violation. The application appears to have a generic computers for mere data gathering with insignificant extra solution activity with the end result being an output of a parking violation. Therefore, the previous 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant's amendments “determining, at the parking enforcement server, any existence of a first overtime parking violation based on the first set of matching parking events; outputting, by the parking enforcement server, a parking violation event for the first overtime parking violation in the case of a match; obtaining, at a network interface of the parking enforcement server, parking parameters related to at least one parking event from a second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; storing, by the parking enforcement server, said parking parameters related to at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices in said computerized database; accessing, by the parking enforcement server, the computerized database; searching, by the parking enforcement server, through the searchable structure of the computerized database for a second set of matching parking events comprising parking events that match said at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; determining, at the parking enforcement server, the existence of a second overtime parking violation based on the second set of matching parking events in the case of a match, wherein said second overtime parking violation is based on parking parameters from said at least one parking event from the first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices and parking parameters from said at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; and outputting, by the parking enforcement server, a parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation in the case of a match” filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is withdrawn.
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 1-7, 9-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1, 13, & 27-31 recites obtaining, parking parameters related to at least one parking event from a first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, as drafted, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. For example, but for the “A computer-implemented method for detecting an overtime parking violation at a parking enforcement server remote from a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, a parking enforcement server remote, a network interface, a network, computerized database according to a searchable structure, the database maintained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory by the parking enforcement server and accessible to the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices over the network., the computerized database storing past parking parameters related to at least one past parking event obtained from one or more of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; mobile parking enforcement devices, computing device, a network, computer-readable memory, A parking enforcement server, non-transitory computer readable memory having stored thereon program instructions executable by the at least one parking enforcement server, searchable structure of the computerized database, searchable structure of computerized database comprises traveling searchable structure sequentially, computerized database comprises optimizing the searchable structure for insertion, query, and retention processes, a GPS antenna” language, “obtaining, parking parameters related to at least one parking event from a first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user taking note of a parked vehicle regarding time and location.
The limitation of storing, said parking parameters related to at least one parking event from the first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices and searching, for parking event that match by comparing said parking parameters of the parking events, as drafted, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the system. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. For example, but for the “A computer-implemented method for detecting an overtime parking violation at a parking enforcement server remote from a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, a parking enforcement server remote, a network interface, a network, computerized database according to a searchable structure, the database maintained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory by the parking enforcement server and accessible to the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices over the network., the computerized database storing past parking parameters related to at least one past parking event obtained from one or more of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; mobile parking enforcement devices, computing device, a network, computer-readable memory, A parking enforcement server, non-transitory computer readable memory having stored thereon program instructions executable by the at least one parking enforcement server, searchable structure of the computerized database, searchable structure of computerized database comprises traveling searchable structure sequentially, computerized database comprises optimizing the searchable structure for insertion, query, and retention processes, a GPS antenna,” language, “storing, said parking parameters related to at least one parking event from the first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices and searching, for parking event that match by comparing said parking parameters of the parking events” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving previous data regarding parked vehicles in that specific location.
Likewise, determining, any existence of a first overtime parking violation based on the first set of matching parking events, outputting parking violation event for the first overtime parking violation in the case of a match, obtaining, parking parameters related to at least one parking event from a second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, storing, said parking parameters related to at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, searching, for a second set of matching parking events comprising parking events that match said at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, determining, the existence of a second overtime parking violation based on the second set of matching parking events in the case of a match, wherein said second overtime parking violation is based on parking parameters from said at least one parking event from the first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices and parking parameters from said at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, outputting, parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation in the case of a match is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “A computer-implemented method for detecting an overtime parking violation at a parking enforcement server remote from a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, a parking enforcement server remote, a network interface, a network, computerized database according to a searchable structure, the database maintained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory by the parking enforcement server and accessible to the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices over the network., the computerized database storing past parking parameters related to at least one past parking event obtained from one or more of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; mobile parking enforcement devices, computing device, a network, computer-readable memory, A parking enforcement server, non-transitory computer readable memory having stored thereon program instructions executable by the at least one parking enforcement server, searchable structure of the computerized database, searchable structure of computerized database comprises traveling searchable structure sequentially, computerized database comprises optimizing the searchable structure for insertion, query, and retention processes, a GPS antenna,” language, “determining, any existence of a first overtime parking violation based on the first set of matching parking events, outputting parking violation event for the first overtime parking violation in the case of a match, obtaining, parking parameters related to at least one parking event from a second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, storing, said parking parameters related to at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, searching, for a second set of matching parking events comprising parking events that match said at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, determining, the existence of a second overtime parking violation based on the second set of matching parking events in the case of a match, wherein said second overtime parking violation is based on parking parameters from said at least one parking event from the first of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices and parking parameters from said at least one parking event from the second of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, outputting, parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation in the case of a match” in the context of this claim encompasses the user realizing that there is an overtime violation of the parked vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using “A computer-implemented method for detecting an overtime parking violation at a parking enforcement server remote from a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, a parking enforcement server remote, a network interface, a network, computerized database according to a searchable structure, the database maintained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory by the parking enforcement server and accessible to the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices over the network., the computerized database storing past parking parameters related to at least one past parking event obtained from one or more of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; mobile parking enforcement devices, computing device, a network, computer-readable memory, A parking enforcement server, non-transitory computer readable memory having stored thereon program instructions executable by the at least one parking enforcement server, searchable structure of the computerized database, searchable structure of computerized database comprises traveling searchable structure sequentially, computerized database comprises optimizing the searchable structure for insertion, query, and retention processes, a GPS antenna,”. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “A computer-implemented method for detecting an overtime parking violation at a parking enforcement server remote from a plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices, a parking enforcement server remote, a network interface, a network, computerized database according to a searchable structure, the database maintained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory by the parking enforcement server and accessible to the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices over the network., the computerized database storing past parking parameters related to at least one past parking event obtained from one or more of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement devices; mobile parking enforcement devices, computing device, a network, computer-readable memory, A parking enforcement server, non-transitory computer readable memory having stored thereon program instructions executable by the at least one parking enforcement server, searchable structure of the computerized database, searchable structure of computerized database comprises traveling searchable structure sequentially, computerized database comprises optimizing the searchable structure for insertion, query, and retention processes, a GPS antenna,”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 2 & 14, wherein the parking events comprise a license plate identifier of the parked vehicle, and wherein the matching parking events comprise the license plate identifier of the parked vehicle, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein the parking events comprise a license plate identifier of the parked vehicle, and wherein the matching parking events comprise the license plate identifier of the parked vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses the user explicitly noting the license plate in the license plate area of the paper he is filling out. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Likewise for claims 3 & 15, wherein said determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises: generating a tentative violation event representing a potential parking violation based on the license plate identifier of first parking event corresponding to the license plate identifier of the first set of matching parking events, outputting the tentative violation event, receiving a confirmation that the potential parking violation is a parking violation, generating the parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation in response to the confirmation, is a device & process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein said determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises: generating a tentative violation event representing a potential parking violation based on the license plate identifier of first parking event corresponding to the license plate identifier of the first set of matching parking events, outputting the tentative violation event, receiving a confirmation that the potential parking violation is a parking violation, generating the parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation in response to the confirmation” in the context of this claim encompasses a user making sure of the license plate of the past parking event and current parking event and outputting a violation after double checking the license plates match. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Also for claims 4 & 16, wherein the computing device is the first mobile parking enforcement device, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein the computing device is the first mobile parking enforcement device” in the context of this claim encompasses a device that is able to receive the information from the user and compute if a violation has occurred. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 5 & 17 wherein said determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises searching for one or more matching parking events with the license plate, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein said determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises searching for one or more matching parking events with the license plate” in the context of this claim encompasses a user searching through past parking events to check if the license plate of the current parking event matches any other license plates from the past parking events . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 6 & 18, wherein determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises: calculating a time difference between at least one of the parking events and at least one of the matching parking events; and determining the overtime parking violation when the time difference exceeds a permitted parking period, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises: calculating a time difference between at least one of the parking events and at least one of the matching parking events; and determining the overtime parking violation when the time difference exceeds a permitted parking period” in the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating the time difference to determine if an overtime violation has occurred of the parked vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 7 & 19, wherein said determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises: calculating a time difference between at least one of the parking events and at least one of the matching parking events; confirming that a location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the parking events corresponds to a location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the matching parking events; and determining the second overtime parking violation when the time difference exceeds a permitted parking period and the location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the parking events corresponds to the location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the matching parking events, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein said determining the existence of the second overtime parking violation comprises: calculating a time difference between at least one of the parking events and at least one of the matching parking events; confirming that a location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the parking events corresponds to a location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the matching parking events; and determining the second overtime parking violation when the time difference exceeds a permitted parking period and the location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the parking events corresponds to the location of the parked vehicle of said at least one of the matching parking events” in the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating the time difference between the past parking event and a current parking event to see how long the parked vehicle has been staying at a certain location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Also for claims 9 & 20, outputting the parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation comprises transmitting the parking violation to a computing device, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “outputting the parking violation event for the second overtime parking violation comprises transmitting the parking violation to a computing device” in the context of this claim encompasses the user sending the information to a parking enforcement device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Equally for claims 10 & 21 wherein the computing device is at least one of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement device, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein the computing device is at least one of the plurality of mobile parking enforcement device” in the context of this claim encompasses that the computing device a parking enforcement device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 11 & 22, wherein outputting the parking violation event for the second parking violation comprises storing the parking violation event, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein outputting the parking violation event for the second parking violation comprises storing the parking violation event” in the context of this claim encompasses the user storing a copy of the violation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 12 & 23, the second overtime parking violation is determined in real-time, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “the second overtime parking violation is determined in real-time” in the context of this claim encompasses the user performing the detection and outputting of an overtime violation in real-time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claim 24, wherein said obtaining parking events comprises obtaining a first portion of one of the plurality of parking events at a first time and obtaining a remainder of said one of the plurality of parking events at a second, different time, wherein determining the second overtime parking violation of the parked vehicle is based on the first portion of said one of the plurality of parking events, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein said obtaining parking events comprises obtaining a first portion of one of the plurality of parking events at a first time and obtaining a remainder of said one of the plurality of parking events at a second, different time, wherein determining the second overtime parking violation of the parked vehicle is based on the first portion of said one of the plurality of parking events” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving a first time of a parking event and then detecting the same vehicle at a second time and detecting if an overtime violation has occurred based on the occurrence of times detected of that vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 25, wherein said obtaining the parking event, comprising the parking event and additional data pertaining to one of the first mobile parking enforcement device and said one of said plurality of patrol vehicle, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “wherein said obtaining the parking event, comprising the parking event and additional data pertaining to one of the first mobile parking enforcement device and said one of said plurality of patrol vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving a first parking event with different information regarding the parked vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 26, said obtaining the parking event, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “obtaining the parking event” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving a parking event through a text message or picture or cell phone. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect a violation of a parked vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668