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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 02/21/2026.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 5-20 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “a plurality a machine associated with.” This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 02/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claim 1 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 1, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
obtain. . . data representative of a movement of the motor and provide the data representative of the movement of the motor to the controller; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain this data)
display a runtime value selected from a group consisting of a number of rotations of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of rotations of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this information)
display a threshold value corresponding to the runtime value; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this value)
receive a change via the input to the threshold value and automatically update the threshold value. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a change to a threshold value and update it)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of these steps.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a user interface that comprises a display and an input, the user interface is coupled with a controller that is coupled with a machine associated with an operation of an automated parking garage that comprises a motor, the machine is selected from a group consisting of an entry level carrier module, a horizontal carrier module, a rack entry module, a pallet shuttle, a pallet stacker, a pallet vertical lift, and a vertical lift carrier; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using these machines since the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of receiving information from these machines without indicating how the solution is brought about, and since the machines merely act as tools in their ordinary capacity to perform their existing functions)
the user interface operable to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
from a sensor coupled with the motor and the controller, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a generically recited sensor since the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of receiving information from this sensor without indicating how the solution is brought about, and since the sensors merely act as tools in their ordinary capacity to perform their existing functions to bring information into the system)
automatically update the threshold value. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-4, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
the user interface is further operable to display values selected from a group consisting of a number of revolution of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of revolutions of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down that do not exceed their threshold in a first color and a value that exceeds and another value selected from a group consisting of a number of revolution of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of revolutions of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down that exceeds its threshold value in a second color.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the values displayed and changed by the user, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 3:
further comprising an input to reset the selected runtime value selected from a group consisting of a number of rotations of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of revolutions of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the values displayed and changed by the user, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
a plurality a machine associated with an operation of an automated parking garage that comprises a motor, the plurality of machines includes an entry level carrier module, a horizontal carrier module, a rack entry module, a pallet shuttle, a pallet stacker, a pallet vertical lift, and a vertical lift carrier;
a machine selection input operable to select a selected machine from the plurality of values;
and a reset input operable to reset the runtime values of the selected machine.
Regarding the addition of the plurality of machines, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using these machines since the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of receiving information from these machines without indicating how the solution is brought about, and since the machines merely act as tools in their ordinary capacity to perform their existing functions. Regarding selection of a machine and changing of values on the selected machine, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection of a machine, receive a change to a runtime value and update it for the selected machine.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-4, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag, Gerhard (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20030069665; hereinafter "Haag") in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20200067440; hereinafter "Zhao").
As per claim 1, Haag teaches:
An apparatus, comprising:
Haag teaches an automated parking and storage facility. (Haag: abstract)
a user interface that comprises a display and an input, the user interface is coupled with a controller that is coupled with a machine associated with an operation of an automated parking garage that comprises a motor, the machine is selected from a group consisting of an entry level carrier module, a horizontal carrier module, a rack entry module, a pallet shuttle, a pallet stacker, a pallet vertical lift, and a vertical lift carrier;
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches a controller in the form of a computer which causes the display and controls operations of the automated parking garage. (Haag: paragraph [0016])
the user interface operable to obtain from a sensor coupled with the motor and the controller, data representative of a movement of the motor and provide the data representative of the movement of the motor to the controller;
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches that the user interface may display values from sensors including values of the motor of the system. (Haag: paragraphs [0052, 59, 79, 81, 84])
With respect to the following limitation:
and the user interface is operable to display a runtime value selected from a group consisting of a number of rotations of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of rotations of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down;
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches that the user interface may display values from sensors including values of the motor of the system. (Haag: paragraphs [0052, 59, 79, 81, 84]) Haag, however, does not appear to explicitly teach these particular values displayed regarding the motor.
Zhao, however, teaches that a number of rotations of a motor (RPM) may be displayed to a user on a user interface, wherein the interface may comprise a user indicated maximum value and minimum value (one or more threshold values) of the rotations of the motor. (Zhao: paragraphs [0023-25, 36-37, 44], Fig. 3) Zhao teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Haag for the benefit of providing a motor control system and associated method to flexibly configure a motor speed based on user demands, which greatly reduce cost and design cycle. (Zhao: paragraph [0008]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhao with the teachings of Haag to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Haag in view of Zhao further teaches:
the user interface is further operable to display a threshold value corresponding to the runtime value;
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches that the user interface may display values from sensors including values of the motor of the system. (Haag: paragraphs [0052, 59, 79, 81, 84]) Zhao, as outlined above, teaches that a number of rotations of a motor (RPM) may be displayed to a user on a user interface, wherein the interface may comprise a user indicated maximum value and minimum value (one or more threshold values) of the rotations of the motor. (Zhao: paragraphs [0023-25, 36-37, 44], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Zhao persists.
and the user interface is operable to receive a change via the input to the threshold value and automatically update the threshold value.
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches that the user interface may display values from sensors including values of the motor of the system. (Haag: paragraphs [0052, 59, 79, 81, 84]) Zhao, as outlined above, teaches that a number of rotations of a motor (RPM) may be displayed to a user on a user interface, wherein the interface may comprise a user indicated maximum value and minimum value (one or more threshold values) of the rotations of the motor. (Zhao: paragraphs [0023-25, 36-37, 44], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Zhao persists.
As per claim 2, Haag in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
the user interface is further operable to display values selected from a group consisting of a number of revolution of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of revolutions of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down that do not exceed their threshold in a first color and a value that exceeds and another value selected from a group consisting of a number of revolution of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of revolutions of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down that exceeds its threshold value in a second color.
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches that the user interface may display values from sensors including values of the motor of the system. (Haag: paragraphs [0052, 59, 79, 81, 84]) Zhao, as outlined above, teaches that a number of rotations of a motor (RPM) may be displayed to a user on a user interface, wherein the interface may comprise a user indicated maximum value and minimum value (one or more threshold values) of the rotations of the motor. (Zhao: paragraphs [0023-25, 36-37, 44], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Zhao persists.
As per claim 3, Haag in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising an input to reset the selected runtime value selected from a group consisting of a number of rotations of the motor, an amount of time the motor has been operating, a number of revolutions of a turntable associated with the motor, an amount of time a cable reel associated with the motor has been operating, and a number of times a rack entry module has moved up and down.
Haag teaches a user interface which may display values detected by sensors of a vertical lift carrier (VLC) and may receive inputs from a user. (Haag: paragraphs [0032-34, 52, 59, 80-88], Figs. 9A, 9B) Haag teaches that the user interface may display values from sensors including values of the motor of the system. (Haag: paragraphs [0052, 59, 79, 81, 84]) Zhao, as outlined above, teaches that a number of rotations of a motor (RPM) may be displayed to a user on a user interface, wherein the interface may comprise a user indicated maximum value and minimum value (one or more threshold values) of the rotations of the motor. (Zhao: paragraphs [0023-25, 36-37, 44], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Zhao persists.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not appear to teach, in the context of the systems and methods recited for automated parking garages, and in ordered combination with the other elements of the claim, a parking apparatus comprising a machine associated with an operation of an automated parking garage that comprises a motor, the plurality of machines includes an entry level carrier module, a horizontal carrier module, a rack entry module, a pallet shuttle, a pallet stacker, a pallet vertical lift, and a vertical lift carrier, wherein the user makes a selection from amongst these machines, and reset inputs regarding runtime values of the selected machine are received from the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628