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 1-15, 17-18, and 21 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 03/13/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 09/15/2025, amended Claim 1. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/15/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Page 6, Applicant argues that independent Claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite “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 and business relations),” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds first, that applicant’s argument does not address Examiner’s rejection. The prior office action explicitly quotes the recited limitations that are apart of the abstract idea, and then maps the recited abstract idea to the groupings and sub-groupings outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Although the abstract idea groupings and sub-groupings are not mutually exclusive, Examiner’s rejection relies on the “certain method of organizing human activity” of “commercial or legal interactions” stating that purchasing parking, including determining a price, and controlling access to parking area are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors” under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.
Examiner’s rejection does not assert that electronically opening a gate is apart of the abstract idea, but instead asserts that controlling from a closed state to an opened state is apart of the abstract idea. For example, in a manned parking lot, a customer can interact with a parking lot attendant that is blocking the entrance to a parking lot, the attendant communicates the required price, the customer pays, then the parking lot attendant grants the customer the legal right to park in the parking lot. This operation would be considered a “certain method of organizing human activity” (i.e. “commercial or legal interactions”) under MPEP 2106.04(a), similar to the recited abstract idea of the instant claims.
Colloquially, “purchasing parking” can normally refer to the entire process of: being prohibited from accessing a parking lot, communicating price, receiving payment, then granting access to parking. As was explicitly stated in the prior office action, determining a price and controlling access are apart of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the limitation, in representative Claim 1, of “caus[ing] the one or more processors to: . . . cause the terminal to electronically control the gate from the closed state to the opened state” is not tied to or triggered by any other positively recited step of the claims. Examiner notes that providing a triggering limitation has the potential to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
On Page 7, Applicant argues that independent Claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite “mathematical concepts,” “mathematical formulas or relationships,” “relationships between the values,” “variables or relationships between variables,” “relationship between [two variables or numerical systems],” and “mathematical correlations.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds first, that applicant’s argument does not address Examiner’s rejection. The prior office action explicitly quotes the recited limitations that are apart of the abstract idea, and then maps the recited abstract idea to the groupings and sub-groupings outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Examiner responds that cells of values organized in an array, such that one column is the time of entry and the other columns are the duration of a parking session, is a relationship between the value, parking duration, and time of entry. Further, the parking session value is calculated from (i.e. “is from”) the values of the cells, time of entry, and duration of parking session, which further recites a relationship between the parking session value and the value, parking duration, and time of entry. Therefore, the claims at least recite the “mathematical concept” of “a relationship between variables or numbers” under MPEP 210.04(a)(2)II.
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 1-15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture), Claims 11-15 and 17-18 recite a method (i.e. a process), and Claim 21 recites a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . a [parking area] positioned in an opened state and a closed state;
. . . cause for display . . . a parking session value for an individual vehicle provided by a data structure comprising an array of cells defined by a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows, wherein:
one of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is time of entry and the other of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is duration of parking session, each cell of the array of cells comprises a value,
and the parking session value for the individual vehicle is from a plurality of cells of the array of cells corresponding to a time of entry and a parking session duration for the individual vehicle; and
cause . . . to . . . control the [parking area] from the closed state to the opened state.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) opening and closing a parking area, (2) displaying (visually communicating) parking value, (3) providing parking value using an array data structure, (4) the rows and columns of the array are associated with certain variables, (5) calculating value of parking, and (6) the resulting value is a data point of the array, all of which are a commercial or legal interactions (i.e. purchasing parking, including determining a price, and controlling access to parking area are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which is a certain method of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and a Mathematical Relationship (i.e. array data structure of rows and columns is “a relationship between variables or numbers”), which is a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system, a gate, a terminal, electronic display, one or more processors, and non-transitory computer-readable memory) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain method of organizing human activity or mathematical Concept groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions” and “mathematical relationships,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain method of organizing human activity and mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) “a system, comprising:”
(ii) a gate and
(iii) a terminal comprising
(iv) electronic display,
(v) one or more processors, and
(vi) “non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to [perform operations].”
The additional elements of (i) a system (Fig. 8 and ¶48 shows “system 200.”) comprising (ii) a gate (Fig. 1 and ¶18 shows “gate 113.”) and (iii) a terminal (Fig. 1 and ¶18 show “a terminal 112, which may include payment hardware (e.g., cash acceptance hardware, credit card acceptance hardware, and/or the like) as well as a display showing current parking rates, for example.”) comprising (iv) electronic display (Fig. 1 and ¶18 show “a terminal 112, which may include payment hardware (e.g., cash acceptance hardware, credit card acceptance hardware, and/or the like) as well as a display showing current parking rates, for example.” Fig. 8 and ¶51 shows that “communication path 204” includes “output devices.”), (v) one or more processors (Fig. 8 and ¶50 shows that “Each of the one or more processors 202 may be any device capable of executing computer readable and executable instructions.”), and (vi) non-transitory computer-readable memory (Fig. 8 and ¶52 shows “memory module 220.” ¶53 shows “one or more memory modules 206 may be configured as volatile and/or nonvolatile memory and, as such, may include random access memory (including SRAM, DRAM, and/or other types of RAM), flash memory, secure digital (SD) memory, registers, compact discs (CD), digital versatile discs (DVD), and/or other types of non-transitory computer-readable mediums.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f), as evidenced by the specification as cited.
The (i) system, (ii) gate, (iii) terminal, (iv) electronic display, (v) one or more processors, and (vi) non-transitory computer-readable memory, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. a computer environment and a parking environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, the use of the (ii) gate provides post-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) as evidenced by specification ¶¶15-17 and ¶¶31-32.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (iii) terminal, (iv) electronic display, (v) one or more processors, and (vi) non-transitory computer-readable memory when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 and ¶¶48-53 show the “system” and its elements.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., (i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (ii) Performing repetitive calculations, (iii) Electronic recordkeeping, and (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Additionally, the (ii) gate is also recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic functions (i.e., opening and closing per specification ¶¶15-17 and ¶¶31-32) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of (i) system, (ii) gate, (iii) terminal, (iv) electronic display, (v) one or more processors, and (vi) non-transitory computer-readable memory, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 recite the abstract idea of:
wherein each cell represents one minute of parking duration at an individual minute of entry time (Claim 2);
wherein the value stored within each cell of the array of cells is based at least in part on data received from one or more sensors relating to the vehicles parked within the parking facility (Claim 3);
wherein the data is received . . . that are configured to monitor one or more parking spaces (Claim 4);
wherein . . . to monitor one or more of an occupancy, an entry time, and an exit time at a parking spot level or a parking facility level (Claim 5);
wherein the cost stored within each cell of the array of cells is determined by a trained model (Claim 6);
wherein the trained model receives as input weather data and date and time data (Claim 7);
wherein the trained model further receives as input event data (Claim 8);
wherein the cost for each cell is calculated on a continuous basis (Claim 9); and
wherein the cost for each cell is calculated in response to a trigger event (Claim 10).
Dependent Claims 2-10, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-10 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) each data point in the data array representing a certain duration of parking, (2) parking value is calculated using multiple factors, (3) receiving data that monitors the status of the parking space or facility, (4) determining the value with a “trained model” (Examiner notes that every mathematical model is created, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “trained model” is a model created by training, i.e. being based on certain information. Therefore, merely claiming a “trained model” does not include the creation or training of the model within the necessary scope of a limitation of using a “trained model.” See also PEG Example 47.), (5) the “trained model” receives as input weather, date/time, and event data (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of providing input to a “trained model” is not limited to, nor necessarily includes, that the received inputs are used to train the model.), and (6) the parking cost is calculated continuously or in response to a trigger event. The further elements of Claims 2-10 (i.e. “one or more sensors” of Claims 4-5) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic components (Fig. 8 and ¶49 show that “one or more sensors 140” includes cameras or “other types of sensors capable of detecting vehicles”) and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. a computer environment and a parking environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-10 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-10, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-10 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-10 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-10 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 11 recites the abstract idea to:
“for populating values for an array of cells of a data structure . . .
training a plurality of gradient boosted tree models for each cell of the data structure by receiving as input a plurality of factors,
wherein: the data structure comprises an array of the cells defined by a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows, one of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is time of entry and the other of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is duration of parking session, and each cell of the array of cells comprises a value; and
the value for an individual cell is a based on outputs of the plurality of gradient boosted tree models for the individual cell.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) populating values for a array data structure, (2) training a plurality of gradient boosted tree models for each cell by inputting a plurality of factors, (3) the rows and columns of the array are associated with certain variables, (4) calculating value of parking based on outputs of the plurality of models, and (5) the resulting value is a data point of the array, all of which are a commercial or legal interactions (i.e. purchasing parking is a “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which is a certain method of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and a Mathematical Relationship (i.e. matrix data structure is “a relationship between variables or numbers” and the use and training of a gradient boosted tree model is “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations”), which is a Mathematical Concept, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. Therefore, Claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 does not recite additional elements and therefore cannot have additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of training a gradient boosted tree model merely includes “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations,” which is an abstract idea. Examiner notes that a “gradient tree model” is different from a “neural network” or “machine learning model” as the latter are defines as being implemented on a computer, whereas the former is a mere mathematical concept which could be implement on a computer.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, Claim 11 does not recite additional elements. With no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B as a whole/ordered combination, there is nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 12-15 and 17-18 recite the abstract idea of:
wherein each cell represents one minute of parking duration at an individual minute of entry time (Claim 12);
wherein the value stored within each cell of the array of cells is based at least in part on data received from . . . relating to the vehicles parked within the parking facility (Claim 13);
wherein the data is received . . . that are configured to monitor one or more parking spaces and vehicles moving within the parking facility (Claim 14);
wherein . . . to monitor one or more of an occupancy, an entry time, and an exit time at a parking spot level or a parking facility level (Claim 15);
wherein the plurality of factors comprises weather data and date and time data (Claim 17); and
wherein the plurality of factors comprises event data (Claim 18).
Dependent Claims 12-15 and 17-18, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 12-15 and 17-18 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) each data point in the data matrix representing a certain duration of parking, (2) parking cost is calculated using multiple factors, (3) receiving data that monitors the status of the parking space or facility, (4) determining the cost with a “trained model” (Examiner notes that every mathematical model is created, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “trained model” is a model created by training, i.e. being based on certain information. Therefore, merely claiming a “trained model” does not include the creation or training of the model within the necessary scope of a limitation of using a “trained model.”), (5) the “trained model” receives as input weather, date/time, and event data (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of providing input to a “trained model” is not limited to, nor necessarily includes, that the received inputs are used to train the model.), and (6) the parking cost is calculated continuously or in response to a trigger event. The further elements of Claims 12-15 and 17-18 (i.e. “one or more sensors” of Claims 13-15) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic components similar to the generic components of Claims 4-5 and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. a computer environment) just as in Claims 11. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 12-15 and 17-18 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application similar to Claim 11 as discussed above. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 11 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 12-15 and 17-18, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 11. Therefore, Claims 12-15 and 17-18 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 12-15 and 17-18 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 11. Therefore, Claims 12-15 and 17-18 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of:
“[a parking area] to be positioned in an opened state and a closed state;
[to] monitor a plurality of parking spaces to create data relating to one or more of an occupancy, an entry time, and an exit time at a parking spot level or a parking facility level; and
[to] cause for display . . . a parking session value for an individual vehicle provided by data structure comprising an array of cells defined by a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows,
wherein: one of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is time of entry and the other of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is duration of parking session, each cell of the array of cells comprises a value based at least in part on the data generated by the [monitoring], and the parking session value for the individual vehicle is from a plurality of cells of the array of cells corresponding to a time of entry and a parking session duration for the individual vehicle; and
cause . . . to . . . control the [parking area] from the closed state to the opened state.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) opening and closing a parking area, (2) displaying (visually communicating) parking value, (3) providing parking value using an array data structure, (4) the rows and columns of the array are associated with certain variables, (5) calculating value of parking, and (6) the resulting value is a data point of the array, all of which are a commercial or legal interactions (i.e. purchasing parking, including determining a price, and controlling access to parking area are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which is a certain method of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and a Mathematical Relationship (i.e. array data structure of rows and columns is “a relationship between variables or numbers”), which is a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system, a gate, a terminal, electronic display, one or more processors, and non-transitory computer-readable memory) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain method of organizing human activity or mathematical concept groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions” and “mathematical relationships,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain method of organizing human activity and mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) “a system, comprising:”
(ii) a gate;
(iii) sensors; and
(iv) a terminal comprising
(v) electronic display,
(vi) one or more processors, and
(vii) “non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to [perform operations].”
The additional elements of (i) a system (Fig. 8 and ¶48 shows “system 200.”) comprising (ii) a gate (Fig. 1 and ¶18 shows “gate 113.”), (iii) sensors (Fig. 8 and ¶49 show that “one or more sensors 140” includes cameras or “other types of sensors capable of detecting vehicles”), (iv) a terminal (Fig. 1 and ¶18 show “a terminal 112, which may include payment hardware (e.g., cash acceptance hardware, credit card acceptance hardware, and/or the like) as well as a display showing current parking rates, for example.”) comprising (v) electronic display (Fig. 1 and ¶18 show “a terminal 112, which may include payment hardware (e.g., cash acceptance hardware, credit card acceptance hardware, and/or the like) as well as a display showing current parking rates, for example.” Fig. 8 and ¶51 shows that “communication path 204” includes “output devices.”), (vi) one or more processors (Fig. 8 and ¶50 shows that “Each of the one or more processors 202 may be any device capable of executing computer readable and executable instructions.”), and (vii) non-transitory computer-readable memory (Fig. 8 and ¶52 shows “memory module 220.” ¶53 shows “one or more memory modules 206 may be configured as volatile and/or nonvolatile memory and, as such, may include random access memory (including SRAM, DRAM, and/or other types of RAM), flash memory, secure digital (SD) memory, registers, compact discs (CD), digital versatile discs (DVD), and/or other types of non-transitory computer-readable mediums.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f), as evidenced by the specification as cited.
The (i) system, (ii) gate, (iii) sensors, (iv) terminal, (v) electronic display, (vi) one or more processors, and (vii) non-transitory computer-readable memory, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. a computer environment and a parking environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, the use of the (ii) gate provides post-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) as evidenced by specification ¶¶15-17 and ¶¶31-32.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (iii) sensors, (iv) terminal, (v) electronic display, (vi) one or more processors, and (vii) non-transitory computer-readable memory when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 and ¶¶48-53 show the “system” and its elements.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., (i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (ii) Performing repetitive calculations, (iii) Electronic recordkeeping, and (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Additionally, the (ii) gate is also recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic functions (i.e., opening and closing per specification ¶¶15-17 and ¶¶31-32) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of (i) system, (ii) gate, (iii) sensors, (iv) terminal, (v) electronic display, (vi) one or more processors, and (vii) non-transitory computer-readable memory, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 8 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Reasons for No Art Rejection
As first held in the Non-Final Office Action 12/08/2023, Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The Closest prior art of record is “9.1 Two Dimensional Arrays” (“tep@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu” Wed Aug 17 09:20:12 HST 1994, https://ee.hawaii.edu/~tep/EE160/Book/chap9/section2.1.1.html), JPH11272899A (“Munakata”), JPS614580A (“Watanabe”), JP3439623 (“Sato”), JPH10198831A (“Shuji”), US5414624A (“Anthonyson”), US20220068079A1 (“Powers”), US20200311623A1 (“Noguchi”), and US20040243526A1 (“Krygler”).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no art rejection:
tep@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu discloses a two variable data structure, where a mathematical operation, including summation, can be applied to a row or column. However, this data structure is not applied as a pricing table, but data containing academic records.
Munakata discloses calculating a parking price by summing a column of a pricing data table comprising of a fractional cost in each cell across for the given parking duration and parking start time. The data table does not include a second variable (row) of parking entry time. Therefore, the payment for each parked vehicle between two given times (e.g. 1:00PM and 2:00PM) is the same regardless of when the vehicle has begun parking (e.g. 8:00AM versus 9:00AM). Thus, Munakata does not teach a separate cell in the data table (e.g. fee rate for a vehicle parked at 8:00 AM after 2 hours (i.e. rate for 10:00 AM) is a separate cell for a vehicle parked at 9:00 AM after 1 hour (i.e. rate for 10:00 AM).) for different entry times. Further, Munakata discloses that the data table can be calculated for an entire year at a time.
Watanabe discloses a parking rate data table with two variables, the first variable is parking duration and the second variable is the amount of money spent at a shopping center while parking. Therefore, for example, the first hour of parking can be discounted if the parker spends a certain amount, or the first hour of parking can be free if the parker spends another amount. However, this parking rate table is calculated specific to each individual parker, after the parker has made a purchase. Therefore, Watanabe does not teach calculating the parking dependent on both the parking duration and the parking entry time.
Sato discloses use of a parking fee table along with entry time and exit time to calculate the parking fee owed. Further the fee table can be updated or revised. Therefore, Sato teaches that the fee table can be adjusted (e.g. summing the pre-revision fee and the post revision parking fee).
Shuji discloses a parking fee that is calculated by summing the parking rate for each “time zone” in the fee table. However, Shuji does not teach a separate cell in the data table (e.g. fee rate for a vehicle parked at 8:00 AM after 2 hours (i.e. rate for 10:00 AM) is a separate cell for a vehicle parked at 9:00 AM after 1 hour (i.e. rate for 10:00 AM).) for different entry times.
Anthonyson discloses a rate table with variable rates for different times and multiple rate tables for differing “conditions.” However, Anthonyson does not teach a separate cell in the data table (e.g. fee rate for a vehicle parked at 8:00 AM after 2 hours (i.e. rate for 10:00 AM) is a separate cell for a vehicle parked at 9:00 AM after 1 hour (i.e. rate for 10:00 AM).) for different entry times.
Powers disclose a fee table with a first column representing the independent variable of “duration,” and the second column representing the dependent variable of “price,” as calculated based on the duration. However, the fee is based solely on the duration, without time of entry.
Noguchi discloses that the parking fee for an individual vehicle is calculated base on using a parking fee table. However, the fee table is based solely on the duration of parking, without time of entry.
Krygler discloses a parking table of fees that includes fees for certain time periods, which could be of a variety of lengths. However, the structure of the table of fees is not further defined, and therefore does not disclose the use of time of entry as a variable.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches either (1) matrix data structure without a parking context (tep@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu), (2) parking data table without both variables of duration and entry time (Munakata, Watanabe, Sato, Shuji, Anthonyson, Powers, Noguchi, and Krygler), or (3) summing a univariable column or row, of duration, to calculate the parking fee, without the other axis/variable of entry time (Munakata and Shuji).
With respect to independent Claims 1, 11, and 21, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements that include “a selection unit that selects a provision option for replacing the vehicle with an other vehicle having an autonomous driving function that does not need a driver if the odor level which is acquired after the equipment of the vehicle is controlled based on the control data does not fulfill the predetermined criterion.”
With respect to independent Claims 1, 11, and 21, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements that include “wherein one of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is time of entry and the other of the plurality of columns and the plurality of rows is duration of parking session” or “determine a parking session cost for an individual vehicle by summing costs in a plurality of cells of the array of cells corresponding to a time of entry and a parking session duration for the individual vehicle.”
Dependent Claims 2-10 depend on Claim 1, and Dependent Claim 12-15 and 17-18 depends on Claim 11, and therefore do not receive an art rejection via dependency.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights