DETAILED ACTION
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim recites “determining an occurrence of an initiating event; querying a user to enter data regarding the parking location or presenting vehicle generated data regarding the parking location, wherein the querying is accomplished by a vehicle telematics unit configured to wirelessly send a query for receipt by a mobile device or the querying is accomplished by presenting the query on a display of a vehicle infotainment system; saving the user entered data or vehicle generated data, the saved data being retrievable by the user; and determining if the vehicle is at a no record location, and wherein the querying step is not performed when the vehicle is at a no record location”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the determining, querying, and saving from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “determining an occurrence of an initiating event; querying a user to enter data regarding the parking location or presenting vehicle generated data regarding the parking location, wherein the querying is accomplished by a vehicle telematics unit configured to wirelessly send a query for receipt by a mobile device or the querying is accomplished by presenting the query on a display of a vehicle infotainment system; saving the user entered data or vehicle generated data, the saved data being retrievable by the user; and determining if the vehicle is at a no record location, and wherein the querying step is not performed when the vehicle is at a no record location”, which is merely just a concept can be performed in the human mind. Thus, all of the limitations can be performed mentally. As such, the claim is directed solely to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and is directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any generic processor. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-11 recite limitations adding specific information to the abstract idea. Mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature ore abstract idea that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. SEE MPEP 2106.05(g). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim recites “a control system having one or more processors and memory with one or more applications stored in the memory; a telematic device communicated with the control system and configured to communicate wirelessly with a user mobile device; at least one on-board camera in communication with the control system; and wherein the control system is configured to determine that the vehicle has been parked, determine that the vehicle is not at a no record location, send a query to a user to enter data regarding a location of the parked vehicle or present for review by a user vehicle generated data about the parked vehicle, and send at least one image generated by the at least one on-board camera to the mobile device for viewing by the user”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the communicating, determining, and sending from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 12 recites “a control system having one or more processors and memory with one or more applications stored in the memory; a telematic device communicated with the control system and configured to communicate wirelessly with a user mobile device; at least one on-board camera in communication with the control system; and wherein the control system is configured to determine that the vehicle has been parked, determine that the vehicle is not at a no record location, send a query to a user to enter data regarding a location of the parked vehicle or present for review by a user vehicle generated data about the parked vehicle, and send at least one image generated by the at least one on-board camera to the mobile device for viewing by the user”, which is merely just a concept can be performed in the human mind. Thus, all of the limitations can be performed mentally. As such, the claim is directed solely to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and is directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-18 recite limitations adding specific information to the abstract idea. Mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature ore abstract idea that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. SEE MPEP 2106.05(g). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al. (US 20180144622 A1) in view of Kazemi et al. (US 20170358208 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Gage teaches a method of recording a parking location of a vehicle comprising the steps of: determining an occurrence of an initiating event (Gage, Para. 43, the controller 230 determines when the vehicle 110 is parked. Determining when the vehicle 110 is parked may be determined from a variety of events captured by sensors that provide indicative signals to the controller 230); querying a user to enter data regarding the parking location or presenting vehicle generated data regarding the parking location (Gage, Para. 49, the display 236 may provide the parking information to a driver for confirmation. The confirmation process may include an option for the driver to edit the parking information or provide additional details to the parking information such as an image of the parking structure previously captured by one or more of the first camera 246 and the second camera); wherein the querying is accomplished by a vehicle telematics unit configured to wirelessly send a query for receipt by a mobile device or the querying is accomplished by presenting the query on a display of a vehicle infotainment system (Gage, Fig. 4; Para. 50, The parking notification system 100 may display the parking information 410 on a display 400 once the vehicle 110 is parked so the driver may customize and/or confirm the parking information 410. The display 400 includes the parking information 410, and input controls 420, 430, 440, and 450. The input controls 420, 430, 440, and 450 may be a mechanical button or a touch-sensitive region of the display 236); saving the user entered data or vehicle generated data, the saved data being retrievable by the user (Gage, Para. 49, the parking information may later be transmitted in the form that was updated and/or confirmed by the driver).
Gage does not teach determining if the vehicle is at a no record location, and wherein the querying step is not performed when the vehicle is at a no record location.
However, Kazemi teaches determining if the vehicle is at a no record location, and wherein the querying step is not performed when the vehicle is at a no record location (Kazemi, Para. 34, if the estimated vehicle parking location is a known designated parking space associated with the user (e.g., a reserved parking space at home or work), a notification will not be provided. For example, navigation engine 106 can keep a history of parking events in database 110 collected over a period of time. If a pattern is discovered (e.g., a frequency pattern) that the user repeatedly parks at the same general location during, for example, a work week at a specific time or time range (e.g., Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM), then that location may be labeled as the user's known designated parking location at work. In some embodiments, the user can input information regarding designated parking locations into the parking application or that information can be included in a contact page or address book stored on the mobile device or accessible via a network server).
Gage and Kazemi are analogous art because they both pertain to providing notification regarding location of the parked vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine vehicle parked at a known designated parking space (as taught by Kazemi) resulting predictable result of not providing a notification when the user parks the vehicle at home or work.
In regard to claim 2, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the method according to claim 1, wherein turning off the vehicle is the initiating event (Gage, Para. 43, when a key is removed from the ignition the ignition sensor 252 may generate a signal indicative of the absence of the key where the signal is received by the controller 230 indicating the vehicle 110 is off and thus parked).
In regard to claim 3, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising presenting at least one image of the parking location to the user (Gage, Para. 49, The confirmation process may include an option for the driver to edit the parking information or provide additional details to the parking information such as an image of the parking structure previously captured by one or more of the first camera 246 and the second camera 247).
In regard to claim 4, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the user is queried to accept or reject the at least one image and wherein if accepted the at least one image is added to the saved data (Gage, Fig. 4; para. 50, input control 420, “Add Image,” may provide the ability for an image to be attached to the parking information 410; Input control 450, “Confirm,” may offer the ability to confirm the parking information 410).
In regard to claim 5, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the method according to claim 4, comprising providing a telematic device and at least one on-board vehicle camera and wherein the at least one image is generated by the at least one on-board camera and wherein the telematic device sends the at least one image to a mobile device (Gage, Figs. 1 & 2, Parking notification system 100 with cameras 246, 247 in communication with a portable electronic device 280; Para. 46, The controller 230 may generate a signal indicative of the parking information and transmit the signal to network interface hardware 260. The network interface hardware 260 may in turn transmit the signal to the network 270. The network 270 may further relay the signal to a portable electronic device 280).
In regard to claim 7, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the method according to claim 1 comprising providing a vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) device (Gage, Fig. 2, GPS 248), the vehicle GPS device providing a vehicle location (Gage, Para. 31, The GPS signal communicated to the controller 230 via the communication path 220 may include location information comprising a NMEA message, a latitude and longitude data set, a street address, a name of a known location based on a location database, or the like) and wherein the method further comprises comparing the vehicle location to a predetermined list of at least one no record locations (Kazemi, Para. 34, if the estimated vehicle parking location is a known designated parking space associated with the user (e.g., a reserved parking space at home or work), a notification will not be provided. For example, navigation engine 106 can keep a history of parking events in database 110 collected over a period of time. If a pattern is discovered (e.g., a frequency pattern) that the user repeatedly parks at the same general location during, for example, a work week at a specific time or time range (e.g., Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM), then that location may be labeled as the user's known designated parking location at work. In some embodiments, the user can input information regarding designated parking locations into the parking application or that information can be included in a contact page or address book stored on the mobile device or accessible via a network server).
In regard to claim 10, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the method according to claim 1 comprising providing at least one on-board camera in communication with the infotainment system and the telematic device (Gage, Fig. 2), wherein the on-board camera sends at least one image to the infotainment system, and wherein if a user accepts the at least one image the telematic device sends the at least one image to the mobile device (Gage, Para. 49, the display 236 may provide the parking information to a driver for confirmation. The confirmation process may include an option for the driver to edit the parking information or provide additional details to the parking information such as an image of the parking structure previously captured by one or more of the first camera 246 and the second camera 247. In such embodiments, the controller 230 provides the driver with the ability to customize the parking information. The parking information may later be transmitted in the form that was updated and/or confirmed by the driver).
In regard to claim 12, Gage teaches a system for recording a parking location of a vehicle comprising: a control system having one or more processors and memory with one or more applications stored in the memory (Gage, Fig. 2, controller 230, Para. 18, The parking notification system 100 for identifying the location of a vehicle 110 generally includes, a communication path 220, a controller 230 comprising a processor 232 and a non-transitory computer readable memory 234); a telematic device communicated with the control system and configured to communicate wirelessly with a user mobile device (Gage, Figs. 1 &2, Para. 18, the vehicle 110 is communicatively coupled to a network 270 and a portable electronic device 280 by way of the network hardware interface 260); at least one on-board camera in communication with the control system (Gage, Fig. 2, Cameras 246, 247; Para. 28, the first camera 246 may be positioned on the dash of the vehicle 110 to capture sightlines similar to those of the driver. In other embodiments, one or more cameras may be positioned above the windshield to capture surroundings generally in front of a vehicle 110); and wherein the control system is configured to determine that the vehicle has been parked (Gage, Para. 43, the controller 230 determines when the vehicle 110 is parked. Determining when the vehicle 110 is parked may be determined from a variety of events captured by sensors that provide indicative signals to the controller 230), send a query to a user to enter data regarding a location of the parked vehicle or present for review by a user vehicle generated data about the parked vehicle (Gage, Para. 49, the display 236 may provide the parking information to a driver for confirmation. The confirmation process may include an option for the driver to edit the parking information or provide additional details to the parking information such as an image of the parking structure previously captured by one or more of the first camera 246 and the second camera) and send at least one image generated by the at least one on-board camera to the mobile device for viewing by the user (Gage, Para. 49, the display 236 may provide the parking information to a driver for confirmation. The confirmation process may include an option for the driver to edit the parking information or provide additional details to the parking information such as an image of the parking structure previously captured by one or more of the first camera 246 and the second camera 247. In such embodiments, the controller 230 provides the driver with the ability to customize the parking information. The parking information may later be transmitted in the form that was updated and/or confirmed by the driver).
Gage does not teach determine that the vehicle is not at a no record location.
However, Kazemi teaches determine that the vehicle is not at a no record location (Kazemi, Para. 34, if the estimated vehicle parking location is a known designated parking space associated with the user (e.g., a reserved parking space at home or work), a notification will not be provided. For example, navigation engine 106 can keep a history of parking events in database 110 collected over a period of time. If a pattern is discovered (e.g., a frequency pattern) that the user repeatedly parks at the same general location during, for example, a work week at a specific time or time range (e.g., Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM), then that location may be labeled as the user's known designated parking location at work. In some embodiments, the user can input information regarding designated parking locations into the parking application or that information can be included in a contact page or address book stored on the mobile device or accessible via a network server).
Gage and Kazemi are analogous art because they both pertain to providing notification regarding location of the parked vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine vehicle parked at a known designated parking space (as taught by Kazemi) resulting predictable result of not providing a notification when the user parks the vehicle at home or at work.
In regard to claim 13, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the system according to claim 12, further comprising a vehicle infotainment system having a user interface (Gage, Para. 22, The parking notification system 100 comprises a display 236 for providing visual output such as, for example, parking information, maps, navigation, entertainment, information, or a combination thereof) and in communication with the at least one on-board camera, wherein the infotainment system is configured to display the query and the at least one image generated by the on-board camera ((Gage, Para. 49, The confirmation process may include an option for the driver to edit the parking information or provide additional details to the parking information such as an image of the parking structure previously captured by one or more of the first camera 246 and the second camera 247).
In regard to claim 14, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the system according to claim 12 wherein the telematic device is configured to send data entered through the user interface to the mobile device (Gage, Para. 46, The controller 230 may generate a signal indicative of the parking information and transmit the signal to network interface hardware 260. The network interface hardware 260 may in turn transmit the signal to the network 270. The network 270 may further relay the signal to a portable electronic device 280).
In regard to claim 15, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the system according to claim 12 which also includes a vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS) device in communication with the control system (Gage, Fig. 2, GPS 248), the vehicle GPS device providing a vehicle location (Gage, Para. 31, The GPS signal communicated to the controller 230 via the communication path 220 may include location information comprising a NMEA message, a latitude and longitude data set, a street address, a name of a known location based on a location database, or the like) and wherein the control system is configured to compare the vehicle location provided by the GPS device to a predetermined list of one or more no record locations (Kazemi, Para. 34, if the estimated vehicle parking location is a known designated parking space associated with the user (e.g., a reserved parking space at home or work), a notification will not be provided. For example, navigation engine 106 can keep a history of parking events in database 110 collected over a period of time. If a pattern is discovered (e.g., a frequency pattern) that the user repeatedly parks at the same general location during, for example, a work week at a specific time or time range (e.g., Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM), then that location may be labeled as the user's known designated parking location at work. In some embodiments, the user can input information regarding designated parking locations into the parking application or that information can be included in a contact page or address book stored on the mobile device or accessible via a network server).
In regard to claim 16, Combination of Gage and Kazemi teach the system according to claim 15 wherein the no record locations are stored in the memory (Kazemi, Para. 34, the user can input information regarding designated parking locations into the parking application or that information can be included in a contact page or address book stored on the mobile device or accessible via a network server).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al. (US 20180144622 A1) in view of Kazemi et al. (US 20170358208 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20220053288 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Combination of Gage and Kazemi do not specifically teach the method of claim 1 wherein the initiating event is putting the vehicle into a park mode.
However, Lee teaches wherein the initiating event is putting the vehicle into a park mode (Lee, Para. 52, when the transmission of the vehicle is switched to the parking mode (P mode), the controller 102 may determine that the vehicle is parked).
Gage and Lee are analogous art because they both pertain to transmitting the parking location information to a driver’s portable device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the vehicle is parked based on transmission being switched to the parking mode (as taught by Lee) resulting in predictable result of determining the vehicle is parked.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al. (US 20180144622 A1) in view of Kazemi et al. (US 20170358208 A1) and further in view of Yarnord et al. (US 20110215949 A1).
In regard to claim 17, Combination of Gage and Kazemi do not teach the system according to claim 12 wherein the control system is configured to, in response to a request received by the telematics device, retrieve information stored in the memory regarding the vehicle location and to cause the telematic device to transmit the information for receipt by the mobile device.
However, Yarnord teaches the system according to claim 12 wherein the control system is configured to, in response to a request received by the telematics device, retrieve information stored in the memory regarding the vehicle location and to cause the telematic device to transmit the information for receipt by the mobile device (Yarnord, Para. 16, if a user holding wireless user device 104 (e.g. a smartphone) using an application thereon, requests the location of his vehicle 102 to display on a map rendered on the user device, the user device application may send the request message, along with a unique identifier and location information corresponding to the user device to computer 110. Computer 110 may then perform a table lookup based on the unique identifier received in the location request message, and then either determine from information stored thereon the most recent location of vehicle device 106, or generate and send a message to vehicle device 106 requesting the current location thereof. Para. 17, After obtaining the location of vehicle device 106, computer 110 (or whichever device is running the application that is processing the information) determines the distance 116 between the user device 104 and the vehicle device is 106. Then, computer 110 compares the determined distance 116 with predetermined criteria and either provides the location information of the vehicle device to the user device).
Gage, Kazemi, and Yarnord are analogous art because they all pertain to providing location information of a vehicle to a user device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send vehicle location information based on received request (as taught by Yarnord) resulting in predictable result of providing location information of a vehicle to a user device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al. (US 20180144622 A1) in view of Kazemi et al. (US 20170358208 A1) and further in view of Yarnord et al. (US 20110215949 A1) and Kong et al. (US 20230398950 A1).
In regard to claim 18, Combination of Gage, Kazemi, and Yarnord do not specifically teach the system according to claim 17 wherein the control system is also configured to, in response to a request received by the telematics device, cause the on-board camera to capture an image and to cause the telematic device to transmit the image for receipt by the mobile device.
However, Kong teaches the system according to claim 17 wherein the control system is also configured to, in response to a request received by the telematics device, cause the on-board camera to capture an image and to cause the telematic device to transmit the image for receipt by the mobile device (Kong, Para. 94-95, in the state in which the vehicle is parked (e.g., the turned-off state of the vehicle and the turned-off state of the camera), the controller 80 determines whether an operation signal is received from the mobile device 100 (S201 and S202). When a mobile operation signal generated by operation of the mobile device 100 by a user, who is located at a remote place, is transmitted to the controller 80 in the state in which the vehicle is parked, the controller 80 turns on the first camera 40 (S203) and transmits the image of the area surrounding the vehicle captured through the transparent lens 24 of the guide pipe 22 by the first camera 40 to the mobile device 100 of the user).
Gage, Kazemi, Yarnord, and Kong are analogous art because they all pertain to providing status of a parked vehicle to a user device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send image of the area surrounding the vehicle based on received request (as taught by Kong) resulting in predictable result of providing information of a vehicle to a user device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In that remarks, applicant's argues in substance:
Applicant argues: "Claims 1-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention allegedly is directed to an abstract idea, to wit, a mental process. Claim 1 has been amended and now recites, among other things, a vehicle telematics device and a vehicle infotainment system, such that the assertion that claim 1 is directed to a mental process is now moot.”
Examiner's Response: Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 1 describes “querying a user to enter data … or presenting vehicle generated data regarding the parking location”, so the querying step doesn’t look required by the claim. The “presenting vehicle generated data regarding the parking location” language doesn’t overcome the 101, since that can still be done by a person presenting parking location information to another person. If the querying step is optional then the use of the vehicle telematics unit or the vehicle infotainment system to implement the querying step is also optional, so the amendment doesn’t overcome the 101 rejection. Claim 12 is also rejected for the same reason.
Response to amended claims is considered above in claim Rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689