Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on 04/07/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21 were rejected in the Final Office action mailed on 10/08/2025. Applicant filed after-final Amendments on 03/09/2026. The amended claimset was not entered per Advisory action mailed on 03/12/2026. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 04/07/2026, amended Claims 1 and 21. Herein this Non-Final Office Action, Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/09/2026, 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 Pages 6-8 (Step 2A Prong One), Applicant argues that none of the activities, e.g. “purchasing, sales, marketing, or any form of commercial interaction,” are recited in the independent claims, i.e. “These claims contains no recitation of a sale, a purchase, a fee payment, a contract, a financial exchange, or any legal or commercial obligation.” Applicant further reputes that the “parking session value” represents a “price.” Applicant further argues that the claim limitation of opening the gate does not recite an abstract idea, i.e. “The claims do not require payment or any financial exchange as a condition of opening the gate; nor do they set forth any economic decision-making process.” Applicant further argues that the claims assert a “particular data structure,” not a mathematical concept, analogous to Enfish, i.e. “The claimed two-axis data structure here similarly defines the arrangement and content of stored values used to compute the parking session value, and this structure is central to the operation of the system.” Examiner does not agree.
Regarding Applicant's arguments on Pages 6-8 (Step 2A Prong One), Examiner responds that the enumerated groupings are not mutually exclusive per MPEP 2106.04. Thus, even if the claim did not recite one of the enumerated groupings, the claim would still recite an abstract idea.
The claimed determination of a "parking session value," which is referred to in the Specification as "parking session cost," is a recited "commercial or legal interaction" because the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes the (sole) embodiment in the Specification of "parking session cost."
Additional to the "certain methods of organizing human activities" groupings, the claimed "value" in the claimed array of cells was determined to be a part of the "mathematical concepts "grouping. Per the Specification (Paragraphs 52-53), this "array" "data structure" can be implemented using practically any type of memory using any programming language, which distinguishes from Enfish. The Court in Enfish characterizes the claims at 1336-37 (“Specifically, claim 17 of the '604 patent recites: A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising: means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including: a plurality of logical rows, each said logical row including an object identification number (OID) to identify each said logical row, each said logical row corresponding to a record of information; a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows to define a plurality of logical cells, each said logical column including an OID to identify each said logical column; and means for indexing data stored in said table. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006), the district court construed the "means for configuring" language as requiring a four-step algorithm: 1. Create, in a computer memory, a logical table that need not be stored contiguously in the computer memory, the logical table being comprised of rows and columns, the rows corresponding to records, the columns corresponding to fields or attributes, the logical table being capable of storing different kinds of records. 2. Assign each row and column an object identification number (OID) that, when stored as data, can act as a pointer to the associated row or column and that can be of variable length between databases. 3. For each column, store information about that column in one or more rows, rendering the table self-referential, the appending, to the logical table, of new columns that are available for immediate [1337] use being possible through the creation of new column definition records. 4. In one or more cells defined by the intersection of the rows and columns, store and access data, which can include structured data, unstructured data, or a pointer to another row.” (Emphasis added).) Thus, the "value" and "array" of the instant claims are abstract ideas ("mathematical concepts") merely be applied with generic computer components, unlike the “means for configuring said memory according to a logical table,” which requires “a four-step algorithm” including a specific manner of creating “a logical table that need not be stored contiguously in the computer memory,” in Enfish. Because the Specification (Paragraphs 52-53) provides that practically any type of memory using any programming language can be used to implement the claimed "array" "data structure," the disclosure does not provide sufficient technical explanation to determine an improvement in computer functionality as in the claims of Enfish.
The Final Office action identifies "control[ling]" from an "open state" to a "closed state" as a "commercial or legal interaction." Prohibiting a customer to leave, and then upon payment of service, permitting a customer to leave, is a "commercial or legal interaction" that pre-dates the discovery of electricity. The "gate" is an identified additional element that applies the business rule. See Specification Paragraph 31 ("Upon payment of the parking session cost, the gate of the parking facility may open, for example."). To characterize the "closed state" (and therefore also the "open state") as a technical feature of the "gate" itself would violate 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as the specification makes no mention of the words "close," "closed," "closes," or "closing."
Additionally, Specification Paragraph 31 states “Upon payment of the parking session cost, the gate of the parking facility may open, for example.,” which provides the necessary support for the limitation of “trigger the terminal to electronically control the gate from the closed state to the opened state based at least in part on the parking session value.” No other embodiment in the Specification supports this limitation. Thus, this limitation recites a “commercial or legal interaction,” along with the recited additional elements.
On Pages 8-10 (Step 2A Prong Two), Applicant argues that the additional elements of “terminal” and “gate” are not generic computer components, but “require a specific configuration of hardware, i.e., a terminal with an electronic display, one or more processors, memory, and, critically, a physical electromechanical gate that can be moved between open and closed states under electronic control,” and therefore are a patent eligible “particular machine.” Applicant further argues that the “two-axis array of sells” “reduces computational overhead and avoids repeating complex modeling for each individual vehicle.” Thus, the claims recite an improvement to “the way computers store and retrieve data,” similar to Enfish. Applicant argues that the opening and closing of the gate is not “post solution activity” because it produces a “real-world physical effect.” Finally, Applicant argues that the claim is eligible under the principles of PEG Example 47, i.e. “using the output of a trained model to perform specific technical actions, such as blocking malicious network packets, amounts to an integration into a practical application. The present claims likewise use the computed parking session value to drive a specific physical action by a particular machine, satisfying the practical-application requirement.” Examiner does not agree.
Regarding Applicant's arguments on Pages 8-10 (Step 2A Prong Two), the recited additional elements of a "terminal" and "gate" are not specific hardware as evidenced by the Specification. "a terminal with an electronic display, one or more processors, memory" is not a "specific configuration of hardware" as argued by Applicant, but merely describing a generic computer as supported by the specification. See Paragraphs 48-53 showing essentially any computer can perform the claimed operations. The claimed "gate" is only mentioned twice in the specification. Paragraph 18 states that "gate 13" exists, and Paragraph 31 states "Upon payment of the parking session cost, the gate of the parking facility may open, for example." Paragraphs 18 and 31 make no mention as to the structure of the gate. Thus, the scope of the gate must include a generic machinery to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The operations of the computer itself is routine operations. Although the calculations performed on the computer may be novel or non-obvious, Specification Paragraphs 48-53 is clear that these calculations may be performed on nearly any computer. Specifically, Paragraphs 52-53 show that this "array" "data structure" can be implemented using essentially any type of memory using any programming language (Specification Paragraph 52 states “Accordingly, the methods described herein may be implemented in any conventional computer programming language, as pre-programmed hardware elements, or as a combination of hardware and software components.”), distinguishing from the self-referential data structures of Enfish that "improves the way computers store and retrieve data" (See also Id. at 1337 “While ‘[t]he structural requirements of current databases require a programmer to predefine a structure and subsequent [data] entry must conform to that structure,’ id. at col. 2 ll. 10-13, the ‘database of the present invention does not require a programmer to preconfigure a structure to which a user must adapt data entry.’ Id. at col. 2 ll. 27-29.”).
Specification Paragraph 16 ("On the other hand, dynamic pricing based on present demand for parking is computationally expensive because it requires real-time computer modeling of parking demand. Such systems may be too expensive for parking facility operators to deploy.") fails to provide sufficient (non-conclusory) technical explanation required in MPEP 2106.05(a), and therefore the claims cannot provide an improvement to computer technology.
The opening of the gate is "insignificant application" under MPEP 2106.05(g). The test for extra solution activity is not "real-world physical effect," as implied by Applicant. Both examples of "insignificant application" in MPEP 2106.05(g) (i.e. cutting hair and printing a menu) involve real-world physical activity. The only connection supported by Applicant's specification between the operation of the "gate" and the claimed "parking session value" is in Paragraph 31, which provides support for opening the gate after the customer pays the calculated "parking session value [(i.e. cost)]."
PEG Example 47 relates to blocking malicious network packets using neural networks. The instant claims have nothing to do with data packet transfer in an information network, but relate to calculating a parking fee.
On Pages 10-12 (Step 2B), Applicant argues that the office action has failed to meet the evidentiary burden for determining elements are “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional,” i.e. Berkheimer evidence. Applicant further argues that because Examiner has held that the specific claim limitations related to the “two-axis data structure” as novel and nonobvious, the claims cannot be considered “routine or conventional,” without contradiction. Additionally, Applicant argues “The invention employs a particular data structure in a manner that materially reduces computational complexity by relocating modeling work to an offline stage and enabling simple summation during runtime. The specification describes this as improving system operation by reducing computing overhead, an improvement analogous to the computer-functionality improvements recognized in Enjish. Because the specific organization and use of the data structure yields technical benefits that are neither conventional nor generic, the claimed combination cannot be dismissed as routine.” Examiner does not agree.
Regarding Applicant's arguments on Pages 10-12 (Step 2B), the Final Office action has satisfied the evidentiary burden by referencing (1) court recognized WURC activity memorialized in MPEP 2106.05(d) and (2) Applicant's specification. The Final Office Action cites Applicant's specification for each additional element determined to be generic computer components or other machinery under MPEP 2106.05(f). The citations to Applicant's Specification satisfies the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(d).I ("The analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification.")
Examiner's withdrawal of art rejection has no bearing on patent subject matter eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05.1 ("Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.") The claimed "array" is part of the abstract idea, not an additional element. MPEP 2106.05.1 ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.").
The claimed “array” “data structure” is a mathematical concept of organizing data (i.e. array), which is not directly tied to how memory is stored or retrieved (Specification Paragraph 52 states “The one or more memory modules 220 may comprise RAM, ROM, flash memories, hard drives, or any device capable of storing computer readable and executable instructions such that the computer readable and executable instructions can be accessed by the one or more processors 202. The computer readable and executable instructions may comprise logic or algorithm(s) written in any programming language of any generation (e.g., lGL, 2GL, 3GL, 4GL, or 5GL) such as, for example, machine language that may be directly executed by the processor, or assembly language, object-oriented programming (OOP), scripting languages, microcode, etc., that may be compiled or assembled into computer readable and executable instructions and stored on the one or more memory modules 220. Alternatively, the computer readable and executable instructions may be written in a hardware description language (IDL), such as logic implemented via either a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) configuration or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or their equivalents.”). The instant claims are distinguishable from the “means for configuring [memory according to a logical table]” in Enfish. (See Id. at 1337 “The specification also teaches that the self-referential table functions differently than conventional database structures. According to the specification, traditional databases, such as ‘those that follow the relational model and those that follow the object oriented model,’ '604 patent, col. 1 ll. 37-40, are inferior to the claimed invention. While "[t]he structural requirements of current databases require a programmer to predefine a structure and subsequent [data] entry must conform to that structure,’ id. at col. 2 ll. 10-13, the ‘database of the present invention does not require a programmer to preconfigure a structure to which a user must adapt data entry.’ Id. at col. 2 ll. 27-29.”).
On Pages 13-16, Applicant argues that Claim 11 is patent eligible. Applicant argues that calculating the values of the array (i.e. “training”) is not a mathematical concept, but “a claim to how a computer system trains and stores per-cell values in a specific structured data artifact.” Applicant argues that this claim provides an improvement to a computer system similar to Enfish. Applicant argues that Examiner’s characterization “that the elements of claim 11 are generic or conventional” is incorrect, and not supported by sufficient Berkheimer evidence. Applicant argues that “The specification teaches that this arrangement offloads modeling to population time and yields runtime efficiency when computing session values, which is an improvement to computer operation, akin to what Enfish recognized as non-conventional for § 101 purposes.” Examiner does not agree.
Regarding Applicant's arguments on Pages 13-16 (Claim 11), much of Applicant's arguments have been addressed above and in the previous office action. Calculating an array of values is an abstract idea, which is supported by the lack explanation or limitation in the specification as to how the data is stored (e.g. programming language, drive format, memory). The asserted efficiency gains in the specification are either conclusory or an improvement in the abstract idea itself, and therefore do not provide a patent eligible improvement in technology in light of Enfish and MPEP 2106.05(a).
Additionally, Examiner has not identified any computer elements or other additional elements. Instead the entire claim is a recited abstract idea. PEG Example 47 shows that training a model can be considered an abstract idea. Specifically, PEG Example 47 Claim 2 states “Step (c) recites training an ANN using a selected algorithm. The training algorithm is a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the background, the backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm are mathematical calculations. The plain meaning of these terms are optimization algorithms, which compute neural network parameters using a series of mathematical calculations. The fourth paragraph of the background supports the plain meaning by stating the ‘gradient descent begins by initializing the values of parameters and then applying a gradient descent calculation, which uses mathematical calculations to iteratively adjust the values so they minimize a loss function.’ The background also states that ‘backpropagation is a mathematical calculation for supervised learning of ANNs using gradient descent.’” (Emphasis added). The instant claim does not recite any computer components executing the “training,” and therefore does not include any additional elements, as demonstrated in PEG Example Claim 2.
To put it clearly, Examiner does not, and did not in the prior office action, identify additional elements, e.g. a “computer system,” in Claim 11. Examiner further notes, that Applicant’s disclosure makes no mention as to “offline” or “offload[ed]” computation, and advantages derived thereof.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “trigger the terminal to electronically control the gate from the closed state to the opened state based at least in part on the parking session value.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is not limited to any specific triggering event, but merely that the opening control is “trigger[ed].” The plain meaning of “trigger” is interpreted as analogous to “cause” or “initiate.” The limitation that the “trigger” to open the gate is “based at least in part on the parking session value,” merely requires that the “parking session value,” e.g. cost of parking, is related to the opening of the gate. For example, opening the gate after receiving confirmation that the parking has been paid for, is within the scope of this claim limitation. Such interpretation is consistent with the Specification ¶31 (“After the parking session cost is calculated, it may be outputted to the owner of the vehicle by a variety of means. In one example, a payment terminal at the exit of the parking facility may display the parking session cost. In another example, an application executed on a vehicle owner's mobile electronic device may display the parking session cost. Upon payment of the parking session cost, the gate of the parking facility may open, for example.” (Emphasis added).).
Claim 21 recites “trigger the terminal to electronically control the gate from the closed state to the opened state based at least in part on the parking session value.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is not limited to any specific triggering event, but merely that the opening control is “trigger[ed].” The plain meaning of “trigger” is interpreted as analogous to “cause” or “initiate.” The limitation that the “trigger” to open the gate is “based at least in part on the parking session value,” merely requires that the “parking session value,” e.g. cost of parking, is related to the opening of the gate. For example, opening the gate after receiving confirmation that the parking has been paid for, is within the scope of this claim limitation. Such interpretation is consistent with the Specification ¶31 (“After the parking session cost is calculated, it may be outputted to the owner of the vehicle by a variety of means. In one example, a payment terminal at the exit of the parking facility may display the parking session cost. In another example, an application executed on a vehicle owner's mobile electronic device may display the parking session cost. Upon payment of the parking session cost, the gate of the parking facility may open, for example.” (Emphasis added).).
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
trigger . . . to . . . control the [parking area] from the closed state to the opened state based at least in part on the parking session value.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) opening and closing a parking area based on certain information, (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: “A method for populating values for an array of cells of a data structure, the method comprising:
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 (i.e. the broadest reasonable interpretation of “training” in light of Specification ¶54 includes any method of creating the models, which is not directly tied to a computer), (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
trigger . . . to . . . control the [parking area] from the closed state to the opened state based at least in part on the parking session value.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) opening and closing a parking area based on certain information, (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