DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated October 20, 2025. In RCE, submitted December 10, 2025, claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 8-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Under Step 2A, Prong 1, amended claim 1 does not recite any of the judicial exceptions identified in the 2019 PEG. The claim is directed to a concrete, technological process implemented by a vehicle system: the claim specifies receiving sensor data from vehicles located in a parking lot; counting a number of non-parked vehicles within a time period; determining an occupancy status of the parking lot based on data pairs that include historical occupancy status and historical counts of non-parked vehicles at given time steps; and, when occupied, automatically controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate to a different parking lot. These operations, as claimed, cannot be performed as a mental process, and they are not methods of organizing human activity or fundamental economic practices. For example, a mental process cannot be used to autonomously navigate a vehicle. Moreover, the claim uses vehicle sensor data and an expressly recited data-driven determination tied to a particular technological environment (vehicle navigation and autonomous control) to affect the operation of a vehicle. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a judicial exception.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection of the claims below, “receiving … data from vehicles located in a parking lot; counting a number of non-parked vehicles within a time period; determining an occupancy status of the parking lot based on data pairs that include historical occupancy status and historical counts of non-parked vehicles at given time steps; and, when occupied, automatically controlling … to a different parking lot” are recitations of the abstract idea. The presence of additional elements (such as vehicle sensor data or controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate) recited along these abstract ideas do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One, they simply indicate that analysis must proceed to at least Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner further notes, neither the detailed rejection below nor the previous Office Actions have categorized the abstract idea as a “mental process”, therefore these aspects of the argument are moot. However, as discussed in the detailed rejection below, the claims do recite “certain methods of organizing human activities”, specifically the commercial interactions associated with determining an occupancy status of and routing to parking lots.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim integrates any alleged abstract concept into a practical application. The claimed system applies specific sensor-derived counting of non-parked vehicles, leverages historical occupancy and historical vehicle counts via defined data pairs at time steps to determine real-time occupancy status, and uses that determination to automatically control the vehicle to autonomously navigate to a different parking lot. This is a particular improvement in vehicle navigation and parking-assist technologies. The claim is rooted in vehicle technology and improves the functioning of the vehicle's navigation and control systems by eliminating routing to full parking lots and increasing overall efficiency and safety through autonomous redirection. Further, the claim recites a particular machine and its operation (the vehicle system comprising a processor and memory executing specific instructions) in a manner that meaningfully limits the claim to a technological implementation, rather than claiming the alleged idea at a high level of generality. The recited steps are tied to tangible vehicle sensor inputs, structured historical data pairs at time steps, and the automatic control of the vehicle's autonomous navigation, thus providing a technical solution to a technical problem of determining real-time parking lot occupancy and rerouting without human intervention.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above and again further below in the detailed rejection, “specific … counting of non-parked vehicles, leverage[ing] historical occupancy and historical vehicle counts via defined data pairs at time steps to determine real-time occupancy status, and us[ing] that determination to automatically control … to a different parking lot” are recitations of the abstract idea, and therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. In the instant case, the claimed “sensor data” is generally disclosed in the specification by way example as “may include camera images, video, LIDAR, sonar, and/or RADAR data” (specification, para. 30) which supports the findings of the analysis that this element merely generally links the abstract idea of receiving data to the technical field of sensor technology, but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the additional element of “control[ling] the vehicle to autonomously navigate” is similarly generally disclosed as “include[ing] one or more automated or autonomous systems… [which] may provide semi-autonomous control or fully autonomous control, as discussed in relation to the autonomous driving module” with no further detail regarding how the automated/autonomous systems interact with other aspects of the invention or how they specifically control the claimed vehicle. This high level of generality supports the finding of the analysis which determined that this element merely generally linked the abstract idea of “control[ling] … to a different parking lot” to the field of autonomous vehicles, but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination these deficiencies are still not remedied. Additionally, it is noted that categorizing “control[ling] … to a different parking lot” as part of the abstract idea is supported throughout the specification, such as in para. 47 “if the parking lot 300 is not available, the method 600 continues to step 660, in which the method 600 includes notifying a driver of a vehicle 100 that the parking lot 300 is unavailable and/or instructing a driver of a vehicle 100 to park in a different parking lot” (emphasis added), where “control[ling] … to a different parking lot” is clearly disclosed as an abstract idea.
Examiner further notes, the technologies of “vehicle navigation and parking-assist” are not themselves improved, rather the abstract ideas, such as “determining an occupancy status of [a] parking lot” and abstract process of “eliminating routing to full parking lots” are improved. That is, any “increase[ed] overall efficiency and safety” is a result of the abstract determination of the occupancy status and abstract determination to route users away from full lots, not improvements in the vehicles themselves or their technologies.
Examiner additionally notes, rather than reciting “a particular machine” the “processor and memory executing specific instructions” are disclosed only as generic computer components used merely as tools to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “Apply It”) in specification paragraph 25. Further still, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a vehicle system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner also notes, the “tangible vehicle sensor inputs” are not positively recited in the claimed language and occur beyond the scope of the claimed invention. As previously discussed, “structured historical data pairs at time steps, and the automatic control” are recitations of the abstract idea, and the “control of the vehicle's autonomous navigation” amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a practical application. That is, rather than arguing any technical improvements, these arguments present alleged improvements to the abstract idea of “determining real-time parking lot occupancy and rerouting”. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology.
On Pages 9-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “Under Step 2B, the ordered combination of features (e.g., sensor-based counting of non-parked vehicles over a time period, occupancy determination using historical data pairs at time steps, and automatic autonomous navigation control responsive to the occupancy status) amounts to significantly more than any purported abstract idea. The claim's specific technological implementation imposes meaningful limitations that improve vehicle navigation behavior and cannot be characterized as mere data gathering or post-solution activity. For these reasons, amended claim 1 is directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection. … Accordingly, [all remaining claims] are directed to patentable subject matter, and withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, as discussed previously and further in detailed rejection below, “counting of non-parked vehicles over a time period, occupancy determination using historical data pairs at time steps, and automatic … control[ling] responsive to the occupancy status” are recitations of the abstract idea, and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Similar to the analysis of the claims at Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of “sensor data” and “controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate” the extremely high level of generality with which the specification discloses these supports that findings of the analysis that these elements amount generally linking the abstract idea to fields of sensor technology and autonomous vehicles. This high level of disclosure further supports the Examiner’s findings that the technology of vehicle navigation is not itself improved by these claims, rather it is the abstract ideas (which are only generally linked to the field of vehicle navigation) that are allegedly improved. As previously noted, an improvement to the abstract is not an improvement to technology.
Examiner further notes, that extra-solution activity (such as post-solution activity) is only one of the tools available for analyzing the eligibility of the claims, and was not used as a basis for the detailed rejection below or any previous rejection. Therefore, the arguments that the claims are not mere data gathering or post-solution activity are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite “when the occupancy status is occupied, automatically control the vehicle to autonomously navigate to a different parking lot” (claims 1 and 15) and “when the occupancy status is occupied, automatically controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate to a different parking lot” (claim 8) [emphasis added] in limitation 5 of claim 1, and limitation 3 of claims 8 and 15.
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Examiner notes that Paragraph [0019-0020] of Applicant’s Specification states that “the vehicle 100 may be any robotic device or form of powered transport that, for example, includes one or more automated or autonomous systems, and thus benefits from the functionality discussed herein. … the automated system is a system that provides autonomous control of the vehicle 100 according to one or more levels of automation, such as the levels defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (e.g., levels 0-5). As such, the autonomous system may provide semi-autonomous control or fully autonomous control”, Paragraph [0045-0047] states “a method 600 for controlling a vehicle is shown. … The method 600 may continue to step 640, in which the method 600 determines whether the parking lot 300 is available based on the occupancy status. … If the parking lot 300 is not available, the method 600 continues to step 660, in which the method 600 includes notifying a driver of a vehicle 100 that the parking lot 300 is unavailable and/or instructing a driver of a vehicle 100 to park in a different parking lot.”
That is, no description, explanation, or detail of the communication between the Parking Lot Occupancy Detection Control System and the autonomous driving systems, or any response of the autonomous driving systems to the determination that the occupancy status is occupied is given.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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, 2, and 4-7 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 8, 9, and 11-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 15, 16, and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 substantially recite counting, based on data received from vehicles located in a parking lot, a number of non-parked vehicles located in the parking lot within a time period;
determining an occupancy status of the parking lot based on the number of non-parked vehicles located in the parking lot using data pairs that include a historical occupancy status of the parking lot at a given time step and a historical number of non-parked vehicles located in the parking lot at the given time step; and
when the occupancy status is occupied, automatically controlling to a different parking lot.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of determining an occupancy status of and routing to a parking lot. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 as a whole amount 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 processor (claim 1), (ii) a memory (claim 1), (iii) sensor data (claims 1, 8, 15), (iv) a vehicle (claims 1, 8, 15), and (v) controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate (claims 1, 8, 15).
The additional elements of (i) a processor, (ii) a memory, and (iv) a vehicle are recited at a high level of generality (see [0025] of the Applicants specification discussing the processor and the memory, [0019 & 0037] discussing the vehicle) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iii) sensor data, and (v) controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate are recited at a high level of generality (See [0030] of the Applicant’s specification discussing the sensor data, and [0019] discussing the controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., sensor technology and autonomous driving technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figure 1 showing all the additional (i) a processor, (ii) a memory, (iii) sensor data, (iv) a vehicle, and (v) controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate 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.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) a processor, (ii) a memory, (iii) sensor data, (iv) a vehicle, and (v) controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate, 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 [See Figure. 1 showing all the additional elements (i) a processor, (ii) a memory, (iii) sensor data, (iv) a vehicle, and (v) controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate in combination], nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 7, 14, and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 7, 14, and 20 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 2, 9, and 16 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 2, 9, and 16 also recites the additional element of a machine learning model, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0027] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the machine learning model) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) 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.
Therefore, the additional element of a machine learning model does 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, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 9, and 16 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-19 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-19 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 10,424,202 to Beaurepaire et al (hereafter Beaurepaire). Beaurepaire discloses counting a number of events in a lot during a time period using sensor data from vehicles located in a lot, and determining an occupancy status of the lot.
The next closes closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 10,636,305 to Schmidt et al (hereafter Schmidt). Schmidt discloses making a determination regarding parking lot status using data regarding non-parked vehicles located within the lot.
The next closes closest prior art is non patent literature “Better Generative Models for Sequentia Data Problems by Mike Schuster (hereafter Schuster). Schuster discloses using data pairs including historical occupancy status at a given time
The next closes closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 2018/0218604 to Astigarraga et al (hereafter Astigarraga). Astigarraga discloses when the occupancy status is occupied, controlling the vehicle to autonomously navigate to a different parking lot.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Beaurepaire in view of Schmidt further in view of Schuster and even further in view of Astigarraga does not explicitly disclose determining the occupancy status of the lot using current unparked vehicles and time step data pairs of historical occupancy statuses ad unparked vehicles. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628