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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 11/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejection
This rejection is reevaluated in light of the amendments. Remarks will be discussed here for improving dialog.
The Applicant remarks regarding the 101 rejection, referring to the claim amendments, that regardless of an abstract idea, the claim impose meaningful limits with the abstract idea, rendering the claim eligible.
First, with regards to claim 1, Applicant states that the claimed amendments do not fall under a judicial exception, a mental process by citing the specification. Applicant refers to ¶26 of the speciation wherein it states, “The solution and improvements provided by the method are not abstract and cannot be performed as a set of mental acts by a human due to the reliance on IoT device data, online source data…”. Although the specification says it can’t be performed by the mind, this particular citation does not change the 101 analysis. Through the analysis, the limitations stated to be considered part of an abstract concept, is still considered abstract. It is not up to the author of the application to decide what is considered not abstract via the 101 eligibility guidance. The Applicant states the identified abstract idea (amended) recite “continuously determining, by one or more processors, a current location… continuously determining and adjust a size of geospatial area based on determine density of available travel parking spots in a vicinity… and the travel route of the vehicle.” Applicant states:
Thus, the claims allow for continuously updating a geospatial area by receiving real-time data from a plurality of inputs and automatically updating a GUI at a frequency sufficient to render smooth and usable information to a user without presenting too large or too small of a number of available parking spots. These elements are also not capable of practically being performed in the human mind.
Applying the abstract idea by using generic computer components, does not exclude the abstract idea from being performed by the mind. Adding extra-solution activities of applying gathering data (receiving real-time data from plurality of inputs), as seen here, does not amount to significantly more. For example, a driver can look into a parking lot and determine different sections of the lot, such as the front, the middle, and the back area of the lot. The driver can see the front area (geospatial area) is heavily packed with vehicles parked. The middle area of the lot has moderate amount of vehicle parked in that area. Finally the back section of the parking lot is almost completely empty with only a handful of vehicles parked there. This would be what one might notice at some local warehouse retailer. The different identified geospatial areas have been identified with density, and as the driver is driving the vehicle looking for a parking spot, would be privy to the travel route of the vehicle. Further with the language of “continuously”, a driver can and would continuously address the parking environment for which they drive, adjust to vehicles moving in and out of parking spots around different areas of the lot, and correct the travel path accordingly. A driver could ascertain the front parking area is opening up during the morning work shift ending and the morning crew are heading out. As such they can see the density of where the morning crew park, and determine that geospatial shape accordingly. Without more details to what “safety levels” equates to or how the density and geospatial areas are specifically affected and how, such as when X happens, geospatial area Y shrinks, the additional elements along with the use of data gathering from different sources are seen additionally elements without significantly more. Additionally a safety level score is still considered a broad concept in that a person can determine different levels of safety by scanning the environment of parking spaces, dark or lit, security or no security, gate, etc..
Adding data sources is great but if you take some known system and add, “use general internet data and/or AI to make it better”, is not sufficient for integrating into a practical application. Yes it can be useful however details are required beyond adding data sources, like how this data effects the outcomes (beyond just saying it causes changes). Details are missing, for instance, the sending of the listing being ordered highest to lowest is sent where? The claim is obscure in nature even before the 101 analysis, making it very difficult to be considered well integrated into a practical application. It is recommended to add a higher level of details to how these components interact and how those interactions are applied into the system, for purposes of being considered as integrated into a practical application. The 101 rejection is reevaluated in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Wherein claim 1 recites, “sending, by the one or more processors, a listing…” in the last clause, is unclear to where this information is sent. The statement appears to be unfinished. Is the information sent to a central server for further processing, a local vehicle, or maybe some database? It is not clear to where this information is sent.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected by similar rationale of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes -- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations (continuously determining… a current location and a travel route of a vehicle, continuously determining and adjusting a size of a geospatial area based on a determined density of available travel sparking spots in a vicinity … and the travel route of the vehicle, identifying… parking travel parking spots within a geospatial area, and generating… a safety level score) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites continuously determining, by one or more processors, a current location and a travel route of a vehicle. This limitation, as drafted (but for the recitation of, “by one or more processors”), is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
For example, a person could recognize where a vehicle is located, next to a building, second aisle in a parking lot, next to the elevators in a parking structure, etc. The travel route would be any desired target location such as to a parking spot. Further it would be understood the person continuously scans an environment for which they are in. This step is directed to a mental process.
The limitation of continuously determining and adjusting a size… and the travel route of the vehicle, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
For example, a driver can look into a parking lot and determine different sections of the lot, such as the front, the middle, and the back area of the lot. The driver can see the front area (geospatial area) is heavily packed with vehicles parked. The middle area of the lot has moderate amount of vehicle parked in that area. Finally the back section of the parking lot is almost completely empty with only a handful of vehicles parked there. This would be what one might notice at some local warehouse retailer. The different identified geospatial areas have been identified with density, and as the driver is driving the vehicle looking for a parking spot, would be privy to the travel route of the vehicle. Further with the language of “continuously”, a driver can and would continuously address the parking environment for which they drive, adjust to vehicles moving in and out of parking spots around different areas of the lot, and correct the travel path accordingly. A driver could ascertain the front parking area is opening up during the morning work shift ending and the morning crew are heading out. As such they can see the density of where the morning crew park, and determine that geospatial shape accordingly.
The limitations of identifying, by the one or more processors, potential travel parking spots within a geospatial area, as drafted (but for the recitation of, “by one or more processors”), is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
For example, a person could mentally identify potential parking spots by seeing open spots or reading parking signs and further can determine by density (car/spot ratio) if the search area needs to be expanded. These steps are mental processes.
The limitations of generating, by the one or more processors, a safety level score for the travel parking spots in the geospatial area of the current location. This limitation, as drafted (but for the recitation of, “by one or more processors”), is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (adding data sources does not add significantly more to the claim element) .
For example, a person could mentally identify how safe one feels. A person could determine parking next to a light post or a camera as safer than parking in a dark area. These steps are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim recites use of “by one or more processors”. This is understood as use of generic computing components being used to apply an abstract idea which is not considered integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts have indicated that additional elements of merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites additional element of: receiving, by the one or more processors, data from online information sources and static and dynamic Internet of Things (IoT) devices… .
Besides being interpreted as directed to a judicial exception in prong one, the claim limitation of “receiving… data from online information sources” for gathering data, is also directed to extra-solution activity of collecting/organizing data. This step could also amount to mere data collecting which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
Further being from “ devices in a vicinity of the travel parking spots…” is described at a high level of generality (i.e. where and what data is acquired, location). This amounts to insignificant application of the identified abstraction per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitations in claim 1 further recites the additional element of scores “based on a geospatial spot security (GSS) artificial intelligence (AI) model trained by IoT device data… . This is additionally seen as a tool being used for applying the abstract idea.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, it may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There are no details about the AI on how it operates to derive the safety score (stating where data comes from is not sufficient). The AI is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the recited mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how the AI operates to derive the data. The claim omits any details as to how the AI solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claim invokes a generic AI model merely as a tool for making the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Additionally, the limitations of “applying weighting to a type and a source…” and “sending, the one or more processors, a listing of the travel parking spots with the safety level score exceeding a threshold value of safety level..., wherein the listing is ordered from a highest safety level score to a lowest safety level score”, is also directed to extra-solution activity of collecting/organizing data. These steps could also amount to mere data collecting/reorganizing which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Per the evaluation in step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of using and organizing particular data is considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the processor and network are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) MPEP2106.05 (g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Independent claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitations and are found ineligible under the 101 guidance as per similar rationale of claim 1 above.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14 above.
Therefore, the dependent claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Additional Art to Consider
Application Pub. No. 20180174449 titled, CONNECTED AND ADAPTIVE VEHICLE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH DIGITAL PRIORITIZATION, also discloses a network for traffic management that prioritizes data based on mobile device use This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s reliance on mobile devices communicating vehicle intentions for processing output data to be used in navigating an environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 5712703969. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662