DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 16 October 2025, regarding application number 18/371,492.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 4-8 remain pending in the application, while claims 2-3 and 9 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-6 were amended in the Amendments to the Claims. Claims 7-8 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the following:
“Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Amended claim 1 recites measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor. A claim that recites measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor is neither a mental process nor a method of organizing human activity. Thus, amended claim 1 and the claims dependent thereon are not directed to an abstract idea, and are consequently patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 5-6 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for similar reasons as claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because although the amended “measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor” step may not be a mental process or a method of organizing human activity, it is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The measuring the size step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle size data for use in the remaining steps) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no particular features claimed on what sensor is used to measure the size of the entry vehicles or how the measurement is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For at least the reasons discussed above and below, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained. See the full rejection details below. It is recommended to further claim an explicit control step, such as one of the steps described in [0024] and [0030] of Applicant’s specification filed on 22 September 2023.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the following:
“The cited references fail to teach or suggest at least "when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle, and when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle," as recited in claim 1. Mielenz and An fail to teach these specific claim features, and also fail to teach or suggest the technical concept of allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the first vehicle in order to preserve the second parking space which is originally few. In other words, Mielenz and An fail to teach the technical concept of allocating the parking space in consideration of not only the entry vehicle this time but also entry vehicles in the future.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mielenz, in view of An, teach the above limitations as discussed in the prior office action and below. That is, Mielenz teaches “when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle, and when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle" in at least [0035 “…to select assigned parking space 24′ as a function of the vehicle size in such a way that maximum visibility of the parking spaces by parking-space sensors 30 may be achieved. To that end, in this example, the largest vehicles 60 to be anticipated are parked directly laterally of parking-space sensor 30 in parking space 24 a, and at the furthest field of view, in parking space 24 f. In between, parking spaces are assigned to vehicles 50 by a heuristic method in such a way that, in particular, smaller vehicles, e.g., of the smart type or the like, are parked close to parking-space sensor 30, and with growing distance from parking-space sensor 30, the vehicle size increases. This allows parking-space sensor 30 to constantly still be able to detect at least the upper part of a vehicle while it is being steered into the parking space.”]. Additionally, An teaches “when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle, and when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle" in at least [0071] and [0119 “In addition, the LED information generating unit 430 may generate LED information for a parking zone or a location differently according to the height or size of the vehicle. The LED information generating unit 430 may receive a user input for a parking zone or location according to the size or height of the vehicle. For example, the LED information generating unit 430 may be configured such that a user having a height of 200 cm or less can be parked in area A and a vehicle having a height of 200 cm or more can be parked in area B The LED information can be generated according to the height or size of the vehicle entering the parking lot detected by the vehicle sensing unit 450.”]. For at least the reasons discussed above and below, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained.
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, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a parking lot management method for managing a parking lot including a plurality of parking spaces monitored by a single camera,
the parking lot management method comprising a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot, wherein
the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle,
even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera, and
the parking space allocation process includes:
measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor;
recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle; and
preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle,
wherein a first parking space is the priority parking space for a first vehicle whose vehicle height is lower than a threshold value,
a second parking space is the priority parking space for a second vehicle whose vehicle height is equal to or higher than the threshold value,
a set of first parking spaces includes a set of second parking spaces,
when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle, and
when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity
Claims are 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” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of “a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot, wherein the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle”, “recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle” and “preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle….”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the claim encompasses a person analyzing the height of a vehicle entering a parking lot, assessing vacant parking spaces, recognizing a priority parking space among the vacant parking spaces based on the height of the vehicle and allocating the priority parking space to the vehicle based on the height of the vehicle, such as by allocating relatively short vehicles to a first set of parking spaces and allocating relatively tall vehicles to a second set of parking spaces. Thus, the claim recites mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate 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 courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional steps of “even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera”, and “measuring the size of the entry vehicle sensor”.
The “even when the entry vehicle is parked…” step is recited in the preamble and thus has been given little patentable weight because a preamble is generally not accorded patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
The measuring the size step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle size data for use in the remaining steps) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no particular features claimed on what sensor is used to measure the size of the entry vehicles or how the measurement is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(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 limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the processor is a conventional CPU. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that 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).
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 4 and 8
Claim 4 recites the parking lot management method according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of parking spaces are arranged in series in a first direction,
an edge parking space is a parking space located at an endmost of the plurality of parking spaces, and
the edge parking space serves as both the first parking space and the second parking space.
Claim 8 recites the parking lot management method according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of parking spaces are arranged in series in a first direction.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method including at least one step. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity
Claims are 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” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitations of “wherein the plurality of parking spaces are arranged in series in a first direction”, “an edge parking space is a parking space located at an endmost of the plurality of parking spaces”, and “the edge parking space serves as both the first parking space and the second parking space.”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed by a person organizing human activity. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the parking allocation processes discussed above, by further assigning an edge parking space as both the first parking space and the second parking space. Thus, the claim recites mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation of “wherein the plurality of parking spaces are arranged in series in a first direction”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed by a person organizing human activity. For example, the claim encompasses the person performing the parking allocation processes discussed above for parking spaces arranged in series in a first direction. Thus, the claim recites mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate 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 courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claims 4 and 8 do not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts 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.
Claims 4 and 8 do not recite any additional elements.
Claims 4 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 recites a parking lot management method for managing a parking lot including a plurality of parking spaces monitored by a single camera,
the parking lot management method comprising a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot, wherein
the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle,
even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera, and
the parking space allocation process includes:
measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor;
recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle; and
preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle,
wherein a first parking space is the priority parking space for a first vehicle whose vehicle height is lower than a threshold value,
a second parking space is the priority parking space for a second vehicle whose vehicle height is equal to or higher than the threshold value,
a set of first parking spaces includes a set of second parking spaces,
when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle, and
when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle;
wherein the plurality of parking spaces are arranged in series in a first direction,
an edge parking space is a parking space located at an endmost of the plurality of parking spaces, and
the edge parking space serves as both the first parking space and the second parking space,
wherein an intermediate parking space is a parking space other than the edge parking space among the plurality of parking spaces, and
when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, a priority of the intermediate parking space being the second parking space is higher than a priority of the edge parking space.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity
Claims are 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” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitations of “a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot, wherein the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle”, “recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle” and “preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle….”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the claim encompasses a person analyzing the height of a vehicle entering a parking lot, assessing vacant parking spaces, recognizing a priority parking space among the vacant parking spaces based on the height of the vehicle and allocating the priority parking space to the vehicle based on the height of the vehicle, such as by allocating relatively short vehicles to a first set of parking spaces and allocating relatively tall vehicles to a second set of parking spaces. Thus, the claim recites mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate 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 courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional steps of “even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera”, and “measuring the size of the entry vehicle sensor”.
The “even when the entry vehicle is parked…” step is recited in the preamble and thus has been given little patentable weight because a preamble is generally not accorded patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
The measuring the size step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle size data for use in the remaining steps) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no particular features claimed on what sensor is used to measure the size of the entry vehicles or how the measurement is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(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 limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the processor is a conventional CPU. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that 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).
Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 recites a parking lot management method for managing a parking lot including a plurality of parking spaces monitored by a single camera,
the parking lot management method comprising a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot, wherein
the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle,
even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera, and
the parking space allocation process includes:
measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor;
recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle; and
preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle,
wherein a first parking space is the priority parking space for a first vehicle whose vehicle height is lower than a threshold value,
a second parking space is the priority parking space for a second vehicle whose vehicle height is equal to or higher than the threshold value,
a set of first parking spaces includes a set of second parking spaces,
when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle, and
when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle;
wherein the plurality of parking spaces are arranged in series in a first direction,
an edge parking space is a parking space located at an endmost of the plurality of parking spaces, and
the edge parking space serves as both the first parking space and the second parking space,
wherein an intermediate parking space is a parking space other than the edge parking space among the plurality of parking spaces, and
when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the first parking space that is not the second parking space has a highest priority, and the intermediate parking space that is the second parking space has a lowest priority.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity
Claims are 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” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitations of “a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot, wherein the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle”, “recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle” and “preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle….”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the claim encompasses a person analyzing the height of a vehicle entering a parking lot, assessing vacant parking spaces, recognizing a priority parking space among the vacant parking spaces based on the height of the vehicle and allocating the priority parking space to the vehicle based on the height of the vehicle, such as by allocating relatively short vehicles to a first set of parking spaces and allocating relatively tall vehicles to a second set of parking spaces. Thus, the claim recites mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate 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 courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional steps of “even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera”, and “measuring the size of the entry vehicle sensor”.
The “even when the entry vehicle is parked…” step is recited in the preamble and thus has been given little patentable weight because a preamble is generally not accorded patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
The measuring the size step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle size data for use in the remaining steps) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no particular features claimed on what sensor is used to measure the size of the entry vehicles or how the measurement is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(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 limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the processor is a conventional CPU. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that 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).
Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mielenz (US 20170200367 A1 and Mielenz hereinafter), in view of An (KR 101949857 B1 and An hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1
Mielenz teaches a parking lot management method for managing a parking lot including a plurality of parking spaces monitored by a single camera (see all Figs., especially Fig. 5; [0009]-[0011]),
the parking lot management method comprising a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot (see [0010 "The central control unit is designed to assign a free parking space to a vehicle and to transmit information to the vehicle, so that the vehicle is able to move autonomously along a trajectory to the assigned parking space."], [0011 "According to the present invention, a free parking space is assigned to the vehicle by the central control unit as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle."], [0030] and [0035]), wherein
the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle (see [0011 "According to the present invention, a free parking space is assigned to the vehicle by the central control unit as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle …The assignment of a free parking space as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle according to the present invention ensures that the state of occupancy of all parking spaces in the parking area is ascertainable at any time by the parking-space monitoring system..."]-[0012], [0018] and [0035 "...to select assigned parking space 24′ as a function of the vehicle size in such a way that maximum visibility of the parking spaces by parking-space sensors 30 may be achieved."]),
even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera (intended use, see the note below), and
the parking space allocation process includes:
measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor (see [0011 "According to the present invention, a free parking space is assigned to the vehicle by the central control unit as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle."]-[0012], [0014 "For example, the vehicle height may be measured by suitable sensors when the vehicle drives in and prior to the assignment of a parking space, and the measured value may be transmitted to the central control unit."] and [0035 "The method of the present invention now provides to determine the vehicle size, e.g., by measuring the vehicle height upon pulling into parking area 20, or by comparison with data stored with respect to the vehicle size of a particular type of vehicle..."]);
recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle (see [0011 "According to the present invention, a free parking space is assigned to the vehicle by the central control unit as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle …The assignment of a free parking space as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle according to the present invention ensures that the state of occupancy of all parking spaces in the parking area is ascertainable at any time by the parking-space monitoring system..."]-[0012], [0018 "According to the present invention, a free parking space and/or a trajectory is/are assigned to the vehicle as a function of the size, especially the height, of the vehicle..."] and [0035 "...to select assigned parking space 24′ as a function of the vehicle size in such a way that maximum visibility of the parking spaces by parking-space sensors 30 may be achieved. To that end, in this example, the largest vehicles 60 to be anticipated are parked directly laterally of parking-space sensor 30 in parking space 24 a, and at the furthest field of view, in parking space 24 f. In between, parking spaces are assigned to vehicles 50 by a heuristic method in such a way that, in particular, smaller vehicles, e.g., of the smart type or the like, are parked close to parking-space sensor 30, and with growing distance from parking-space sensor 30, the vehicle size increases."]); and
preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle (see Fig. 4, all; [0011 "According to the present invention, a free parking space is assigned to the vehicle by the central control unit as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle …The assignment of a free parking space as a function of the geometrical dimensions, especially the height, of the vehicle according to the present invention ensures that the state of occupancy of all parking spaces in the parking area is ascertainable at any time by the parking-space monitoring system..."]-[0012], [0018] and [0035 "...to select assigned parking space 24′ as a function of the vehicle size in such a way that maximum visibility of the parking spaces by parking-space sensors 30 may be achieved."]),
wherein a first parking space is the priority parking space for a first vehicle (see Fig. 4, parking spaces in-between 24a and 24f; [0035 "In between, parking spaces are assigned to vehicles 50 by a heuristic method in such a way that, in particular, smaller vehicles, e.g., of the smart type or the like, are parked close to parking-space sensor 30, and with growing distance from parking-space sensor 30, the vehicle size increases."]),
a second parking space is the priority parking space for a second vehicle (see Fig. 4, parking spaces 24a and 24f; [0035 "To that end, in this example, the largest vehicles 60 to be anticipated are parked directly laterally of parking-space sensor 30 in parking space 24 a, and at the furthest field of view, in parking space 24 f."]),
a set of first parking spaces includes a set of second parking spaces (see Fig. 4, all; [0035]),
when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parking space that is not the second parking space to the entry vehicle (see Fig. 4, parking spaces in-between 24a and 24f; [0035 "...to select assigned parking space 24′ as a function of the vehicle size in such a way that maximum visibility of the parking spaces by parking-space sensors 30 may be achieved ... In between, parking spaces are assigned to vehicles 50 by a heuristic method in such a way that, in particular, smaller vehicles, e.g., of the smart type or the like, are parked close to parking-space sensor 30, and with growing distance from parking-space sensor 30, the vehicle size increases."]), and
when the entry vehicle is the second vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the second parking space to the entry vehicle (see Fig. 4, parking spaces 24a and 24f; [0035 "...to select assigned parking space 24′ as a function of the vehicle size in such a way that maximum visibility of the parking spaces by parking-space sensors 30 may be achieved. To that end, in this example, the largest vehicles 60 to be anticipated are parked directly laterally of parking-space sensor 30 in parking space 24 a, and at the furthest field of view, in parking space 24 f."]).
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
The recitation “even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera” has been given little patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Mielenz is silent regarding the first parking space is for the first vehicle whose vehicle height is lower than a threshold value, and
the second parking space is the priority parking space for the second vehicle whose vehicle height is equal to or higher than the threshold value.
An teaches a parking lot management method for managing a parking lot including a plurality of parking spaces monitored by a single camera (see [0009]-[0010] and [0014]; see the corresponding paragraphs in the attached reference KR_101949857_B1),
the parking lot management method comprising a parking space allocation process that allocates an available parking space among the plurality of parking spaces to an entry vehicle entering the parking lot (see [0063], [0071] and [0119 "For example, the LED information generating unit 430 may be configured such that a user having a height of 200 cm or less can be parked in area A and a vehicle having a height of 200 cm or more can be parked in area B."]), wherein
the plurality of parking spaces include a priority parking space depending on a size of the entry vehicle (see [0071] and [0119 "For example, the LED information generating unit 430 may be configured such that a user having a height of 200 cm or less can be parked in area A and a vehicle having a height of 200 cm or more can be parked in area B."]),
even when the entry vehicle is parked in the priority parking space, a predetermined percentage or more of a parking space adjacent to the priority parking space is not hidden by the entry vehicle when viewed from the single camera (intended use, see the note below), and
the parking space allocation process includes:
measuring the size of the entry vehicle with a sensor (see [0071 "It is possible to detect the height or the size of the vehicle entering the parking lot and display the parking available area corresponding to the height or size of the vehicle through the LED module."] and [0119 "The LED information can be generated according to the height or size of the vehicle entering the parking lot detected by the vehicle sensing unit 450. [ The LED control module 440 may indicate a parking availability zone corresponding to the height or size of the vehicle."]);
recognizing the priority parking space among the plurality of parking spaces based on the size of the entry vehicle (see [0071] and [0119 "For example, the LED information generating unit 430 may be configured such that a user having a height of 200 cm or less can be parked in area A and a vehicle having a height of 200 cm or more can be parked in area B."]); and
preferentially allocating the priority parking space to the entry vehicle (see [0063], [0071] and [0119 "For example, the LED information generating unit 430 may be configured such that a user having a height of 200 cm or less can be parked in area A and a vehicle having a height of 200 cm or more can be parked in area B."]);
wherein a first parking space is the priority parking space for a first vehicle whose vehicle height is lower than a threshold value (see [0071] and [0119 "For example, the LED information generating unit 430 may be configured such that a user having a height of 200 cm or less can be parked in area A..."]),
a second parking space is the priority parking space for a second vehicle whose vehicle height is equal to or higher than the threshold value (see [0071] and [0119 "...a vehicle having a height of 200 cm or more can be parked in area B."]),
a set of first parking spaces includes a set of second parking spaces (see [0071] and [0119]),
when the entry vehicle is the first vehicle, the parking space allocation process includes preferentially allocating the first parki