Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-12, and 15-22 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 4, 12, and 15-16 were amended on 11/14/2025. Claim 6 was cancelled on 11/14/2025. Claim(s) 2, 7, and 13 were cancelled on 08/04/2023. Claim(s) 3 and 14 were cancelled on 07/09/2024. Claim(s) 5, 8-11 and 17-22 were left as previously/originally presented on 11/14/2025. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 15-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page 10 of Applicant’s Response, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 10-13 of Applicant’s Response, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 15-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page 10, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12 does not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea are recited as Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12, respectively, recites “communication with a vehicle parking space sale management to carry out vehicle parking space sale transactions for specified events, the vehicle parking space sale management, characterized in that a user desiring to park a vehicle in a parking space,” “controllable by a vehicle parking provider is to have a user parking account,” the vehicle parking provider is to have a vehicle account,” “the vehicle parking provider is to have a vehicle parking provider account,” “store parking account information and transaction information of the user parking account and account information of the vehicle parking provider account,” “information between in cooperation with the vehicle parking space sale management to implement vehicle parking space sale transactions for the specified events,” “vehicle parking space sale transactions that relate to parking space availability for the specified events,” “after determination, of availability of a parking space for a specified event, specified event date, and specified event time from vehicle parking space inventory to be maintained and updated,” “perform vehicle parking space inventory management of parking spaces available in vehicle parking venues,” “upon determination and in response to receipt of a message to inform the user that current vehicle parking space inventory indicates availability of a vehicle parking space for the specified event, specified event date, and specified event time, presentation, for display of a vehicle parking space sale transaction,” “the user select an executable command to initiate sale of the available vehicle parking space for the specified event, specified event date, and specified event time,” “the users selection of the executable command to cause to send a message to consummate the sale of the available parking space and to update the vehicle parking space inventory regarding parking space status,” “in response to user gestural interaction, production for display of a sold parking space for the user to select for transfer to a transferee, of the sold parking space for the specified event, specified event data, and specified event time,” “in response to selection by the user of the sold vehicle parking space, production for display of a share option action sheet presenting multiple choices of form of electronic messaging, each of the multiple choices including a message template for the user to enter the transferee’s contact information for use to notify the transferee by a message of transfer of the sold specified event parking space to the transferee, the message of transfer including a deep link that automatically enables the transferee to select elective event parking space redemption, and production for display of a transfer of sold specified event parking space for the user to transfer the sold specified event parking space to the transferee,” “in response to actuation by the user of the transfer of sold specified event parking space to bring about to send the message of transfer of the specified event parking space, a notification of transfer of the specified event parking space for elective redemption by the transferee and a corresponding change in a parking reservation record if vehicle parking space regarding the status thereof,” and “selection of the deep link included in the message of transfer by the transferee in receipt of the message of transfer enabling elective event parking space redemption by the transferee that need not hold a user parking account,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and customer(s), which, the entity can provide a user available parking spaces for certain event(s), time(s), and date(s). the user will be able to request available parking spaces, which the user is able to transfer the parking space to a transferee by the user selecting an option to transfer the parking spot. Once the user selects to transfer the parking space then a notification will be provided to a transferee, which the transferee can then accept the transferred parking space and the status of the parking space. The transferee can then receive the transferred parking space, which the transferee can then elect the parking space that was sold thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as transferring, selling, and reserving parking spaces. Also, see Ultramercial, the found that the claims were ineligible and where found to be commercial or legal interactions when the limitations recited “providing [a] media product for sale at an Internet website;” “restricting general public access to said media product;” “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a] sponsor message;” and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query.” 772 F.3d at 712; and See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 8-9, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses the system improves conveniences of making manual parking fee payments, see paragraph(s) 0003-0006. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely making a bare assertion of the improvement without any details of how the parking payments are able to help reduce the inconveniences using non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0006, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Furthermore, while applicant states that the limitations “describe a problem of, and a user-friendly solution to, transferring a specified event parking space to a transferee that does not hold a user parking account with the vehicle parking space sale management platform. By sending the message of transfer including the deep link, the user need not be restricted to an intended transferee that holds, or even be aware of whether the intended transferee holds, a user parking account with the vehicle parking space sale management platform,” see applicant’s arguments on page 12 and applicant’s specification paragraph 0179. This is at best an improvement to the business process (e.g., abstract idea) itself rather than a technological improvement.
Applicant, also, argues that the limitations provide a way to achieve a desired outcome in user-friendly transfer of a specified event parking space and thereby improve efficiency and functionality of vehicle parking space management systems, see applicant’s arguments page 12.
However, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when inconveniences of manual parking fee payment while creating business and marketing opportunities for local merchants is improved, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0006, merely appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of transferring, selling, and paying for parking spaces thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0177, also discloses that the system offers options that enable the user to quickly repurchase parking passes. This merely bolsters the above argument that the vehicle parking space management system is merely used to efficiently and quickly transfer and sell parking spaces, which at best is an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the 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. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely storing, communicating, informing, presenting, consummating, displaying, transferring, transferring, displaying, transferring, redeeming, notifying, determining, changing, selecting, and enabling, parking information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a user’s wireless-connection enabled mobile communication device, a vehicle parking space sale management platform, a wireless-connection enabled user parking account, a wireless-connection enabled vehicle parking provider account, a vehicle parking server, a wireless connection protocol device, memory, a vehicle parking space sale transaction actuator, a sold vehicle parking space transfer actuator, and a send transfer of sold specified event parking space command actuator), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, which the courts stated merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe a specific way for improving efficiency and functionality of vehicle parking space management systems, see applicant’s arguments page 12 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0006 and 0177, however, the mere increase in efficiency of determining and selling parking spaces doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea.
Also, see 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).
Also, applicant argues the limitations provide a more narrowly focused deep link thus amounting to an improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The court in, Secured Mail Solutions. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2017) stated that the claims in Enfish “focused on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”. In this case, applicant doesn’t provide an advancement in hardware or software that, for example, causes a computer to operate faster or more efficiently. The alleged improvement to “a user selection of transfer of a specified event parking space to a transferee and the transferee that need not hold a user parking account with the vehicle parking space sale,” does not parallel to the improvement in Enfish. Applicant hasn’t provided that the claims are directed to a new sort of hyperlink and/or parking space platform that improves the overall functioning of the system and/or hyperlink protocol, or similar improvement(s) to the computer functionality. The deep-link doesn’t improve the manner in which the hyperlink works---instead, the improvement is using existing technology to improve a more efficient way to sale and/or transfer parking spaces, which is at best an improvement to the abstract idea.
.Also, unlike, DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., when the court favored eligibility because the claims were more than well-understood, routine conventional activities in the field. The claims in DDR Holdings were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant. 773 F.3d at 1248, 113 USPQ2d at 1099. The court found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated. 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07.
Here, in this case the claims are not as narrow as DDR Holdings. Applicant’s claims recites that a transferee is able to select a deep link that will then provide reference to a particular web page rather than to a third-party home page. The recited deep linking only requires reference to a particular web page rather than to a third-party home page. Thus, the deep link protocol operates in a conventional manner rather than improving the functioning of the computer functionality.
Also, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In that case, the claims recited using customized hyperlinks to dynamically generate an online application form, where the use of the hyperlinks allowed the form to retain information while the user navigated within the website. Id. at 1348. The court merely found that claims recited only the idea of a solution or outcome, which merely amounted to the words “apply it,” See, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Here, the claims similarly use deep-links (i.e., hyperlinks) to allow a user to more easily follow recommendations, e.g., selling, redeeming, and/or transferring parking spaces. In other words, the claims are merely automating a manual process of selling, transferring, and/or redeeming parking spaces. Therefore, applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page 13, that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 since the claims meet the standard that it is more likely than not that the claim(s) are patent eligible. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, when evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter. The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis, because claims do not automatically rise or fall with similar claims in an application. For example, even if an independent claim is determined to be ineligible, the dependent claims may be eligible because they add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the independent claim. And conversely, even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein.
If the evaluation of the claimed invention results in a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the claim as a whole does not satisfy both criteria for eligibility (Step 1: NO and/or Step 2B: NO), then examiners should formulate an appropriate rejection of that claim under Step 1 and/or Step 2B. The rejection should set forth a prima facie case of ineligibility under the substantive law. The concept of the prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and applicant. In particular, the initial burden is on the examiner to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond.
When an examiner determines a claim does not fall within a statutory category (Step 1: NO), the rejection should provide an explanation of why the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of Step 1 and the statutory categories of invention.
When an examiner determines that a claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO), the rejection should provide an explanation for each part of the Step 2 analysis. For example, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception, identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception, and explain the reason(s) that the additional elements taken individually, and also taken as a combination, 1) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and 2) do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04 et seq. for a discussion of Step 2A and the judicial exceptions, MPEP § 2106.05 et seq. for a discussion of Step 2B and the search for an inventive concept, and MPEP § 2106.07(a) for more information on formulating an ineligibility rejection. See, MPEP 2106.07.
Examiner, has provided a detailed analysis on how applicant’s limitations recite an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application, see the Non-Final Office action on page(s) 3-11 and 13-22. Examiner has provided why applicant’s limitations are more likely than not unpatentable as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner, has provided arguments, with specific evidence from applicants current claims and specification, along with relevant court cases. Thus, showing applicants current claims are more likely than not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12 recites parking customer receiving parking information and selecting various options to either cancel, confirm, or purchase a parking space, which, the information will then be sent to an entity to update the parking inventory based on a user’s selection. The user is also provided the option to transfer the parking space to another user, which the other user is able to purchase the transferred parking space. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations and/or sales activities or behaviors), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12 recite recites “communication with a vehicle parking space sale management to carry out vehicle parking space sale transactions for specified events, the vehicle parking space sale management, characterized in that a user desiring to park a vehicle in a parking space,” “controllable by a vehicle parking provider is to have a user parking account,” the vehicle parking provider is to have a vehicle account,” “the vehicle parking provider is to have a vehicle parking provider account,” “store parking account information and transaction information of the user parking account and account information of the vehicle parking provider account,” “information between in cooperation with the vehicle parking space sale management to implement vehicle parking space sale transactions for the specified events,” “vehicle parking space sale transactions that relate to parking space availability for the specified events,” “after determination, of availability of a parking space for a specified event, specified event date, and specified event time from vehicle parking space inventory to be maintained and updated,” “perform vehicle parking space inventory management of parking spaces available in vehicle parking venues,” “upon determination and in response to receipt of a message to inform the user that current vehicle parking space inventory indicates availability of a vehicle parking space for the specified event, specified event date, and specified event time, presentation, for display of a vehicle parking space sale transaction,” “the user select an executable command to initiate sale of the available vehicle parking space for the specified event, specified event date, and specified event time,” “the users selection of the executable command to cause to send a message to consummate the sale of the available parking space and to update the vehicle parking space inventory regarding parking space status,” “in response to user gestural interaction, production for display of a sold parking space for the user to select for transfer to a transferee, of the sold parking space for the specified event, specified event data, and specified event time,” “in response to selection by the user of the sold vehicle parking space, production for display of a share option action sheet presenting multiple choices of form of electronic messaging, each of the multiple choices including a message template for the user to enter the transferee’s contact information for use to notify the transferee by a message of transfer of the sold specified event parking space to the transferee, the message of transfer including a deep link that automatically enables the transferee to select elective event parking space redemption, and production for display of a transfer of sold specified event parking space for the user to transfer the sold specified event parking space to the transferee,” “in response to actuation by the user of the transfer of sold specified event parking space to bring about to send the message of transfer of the specified event parking space, a notification of transfer of the specified event parking space for elective redemption by the transferee and a corresponding change in a parking reservation record if vehicle parking space regarding the status thereof,” and “selection of the deep link included in the message of transfer by the transferee in receipt of the message of transfer enabling elective event parking space redemption by the transferee that need not hold a suer parking account,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
For instance Claim(s) 1 and 12 are similar to a business relationship between an entity and customer(s), which, the entity can provide a user available parking spaces for certain event(s), time(s), and date(s). the user will be able to request available parking spaces, which the user is able to transfer the parking space to a transferee by the user selecting an option to transfer the parking spot. Once the user selects to transfer the parking space then a notification will be provided to a transferee, which the transferee can then accept the transferred parking space and the status of the parking space. The transferee can then receive the transferred parking space, which the transferee can then elect the parking space that was sold thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as transferring, selling, and reserving parking spaces. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim(s) 1 and 12: a user’s wireless-connection enabled mobile communication device, a vehicle parking space sale management platform, a wireless-connection enabled user parking account, a wireless-connection enabled vehicle parking provider account, a vehicle parking server, a wireless connection protocol device, memory, a vehicle parking space sale transaction actuator, a sold vehicle parking space transfer actuator, and a send transfer of sold specified event parking space command actuator) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “storing,” “communicating,” “informing,” “presenting,” “consummating,” “displaying,” “transferring,” “transferring,” “displaying,” “transferring,” “redeeming,” “notifying,” “determining,” “changing,” “enabling,” “selecting,” “sending,” and “performing,” respectively, parking information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount(s) to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim(s) 1 and 12: a user’s wireless-connection enabled mobile communication device, a vehicle parking space sale management platform, a wireless-connection enabled user parking account, a wireless-connection enabled vehicle parking provider account, a vehicle parking server, a wireless connection protocol device, memory, a vehicle parking space sale transaction actuator, a sold vehicle parking space transfer actuator, and a send transfer of sold specified event parking space command actuator). Examiner, notes, that the user’s wireless-connection enabled mobile communication device, vehicle parking space sale management platform, wireless-connection enabled user parking account, a wireless-connection enabled vehicle parking provider account, vehicle parking server, a wireless connection protocol device, memory, vehicle parking space sale transaction actuator, sold vehicle parking space transfer actuator, and send transfer of sold specified event parking space command actuator, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the 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. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely storing, communicating, informing, presenting, consummating, displaying, transferring, transferring, displaying, transferring, redeeming, notifying, determining, changing, selecting, sending, and enabling, respectively, parking information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a user’s wireless-connection enabled mobile communication device, a vehicle parking space sale management platform, a wireless-connection enabled user parking account, a wireless-connection enabled vehicle parking provider account, a vehicle parking server, a wireless connection protocol device, memory, a vehicle parking space sale transaction actuator, a sold vehicle parking space transfer actuator, and a send transfer of sold specified event parking space command actuator), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, which the courts stated merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe a specific way for improving efficiency and functionality of vehicle parking space management systems, see applicant’s arguments page 12 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0006 and 0177, however, the mere increase in efficiency of determining and selling parking spaces doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea.
Also, see 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).
Furthermore, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer- functionality. In this case, applicant provides improving inconveniences of manual parking fee payments while creating business and marketing opportunities for local merchants is improved, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0006, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality.
Also, unlike, DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., when the court favored eligibility because the claims were more than well-understood, routine conventional activities in the field. The claims in DDR Holdings were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant. 773 F.3d at 1248, 113 USPQ2d at 1099. The court found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated. 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07. Here, in this case the claims are not as narrow as DDR Holdings. Applicant’s claims recites that a transferee is able to select a deep link that will then provide reference to a particular web page rather than to a third-party home page. Thus, the deep link protocol operates in a conventional manner rather than improving the functioning of the computer functionality.
Also, similar to Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In that case, the claims recited using customized hyperlinks to dynamically generate an online application form, where the use of the hyperlinks allowed the form to retain information while the user navigated within the website. Id. at 1348. The court merely found that claims recited only the idea of a solution or outcome, which merely amounted to the words “apply it,” See, MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the claims similarly use deep-links (i.e., hyperlinks) to allow a user to more easily follow recommendations, e.g., selling, redeeming, and/or transferring parking spaces. In other words, the claims are merely automating a manual process of selling, transferring, and/or redeeming parking spaces. Thus, the claims merely amount to the words “apply it.” Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity, which, are not practical applications of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously,
the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in
a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims
adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are
ineligible.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9, 11, 15-16, and 18: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 4-5, 9, 11, 15-16, and 18 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 12 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8 and 19-22: The actuators are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “multiple choices of form of electronic messaging include email message notification or text message notification of transfer of the specified event parking space,” step(s)/function(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and 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, Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 8 and 19-22 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10 and 17: The mobile communication device, an actuator, and a waitlist autobuy feature are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “in response to an indication of sold out vehicle parking for the specified event, specified event data, and specified event time, display an action sheet is to occur that the user selects a command for execution, which is automatically to consummate a sale to the user of the vehicle parking space for the specified event, specified event date, and specified event time if at least one becomes available before the specified event, specified event data, and specified event time,” step(s)/function(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and 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, Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 10 and 17 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 4-5, 8-11, and 15-22 above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), extra-solution activity, well-understood, routine, and conventional, which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 15-22 are 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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628