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 .
Amended claims 1 and 3 thru 5 have been entered into the record. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification overcome the drawing objection from the previous office action (6/17/2025). The drawing objection is withdrawn.
The amendments to the specification and to Figures 4A and 4B overcome the specification objections from the previous office action (6/17/2025). The specification objections are withdrawn.
The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is amended based on the claim amendments, and is recited below in this office action.
The amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (6/17/2025). The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer (submitted and approved on 9/16/2025) overcomes the provisional double patenting rejection from the previous office action (6/17/2025). The double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 regarding the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument states that the newly amended limitations of a communication unit, a receiving unit and a vehicle travel information recording unit are limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner agrees, but these limitations are routine, well-understood and conventional activities that are also extra solution activity in the form of data gathering. The claims still recite the abstract idea (see the underlined portions below in the 101 rejection), and the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims, taken as a whole, are directed to gathering data and processing the data. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 and 3 thru 5 are maintained as recited below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a receiving unit which receives, a vehicle travel information recording unit which creates, a map information storage unit which stores, a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores, a parking position recording unit which collects and stores, a visit pattern information creation section which creates, a first visit pattern information creation section which cumulates, a second pattern information creation section which creates, a visit pattern information storage section storing, a visit pattern change determination section which determines, and a facility change information creation section which creates in claim 1; and a receiving step of receiving, a vehicle travel information recording step of creating, a map information storing step of storing, a vehicle travel information storing step of storing, a parking position recording step of collecting and storing, a visit pattern information creating step of creating, a first visit pattern information creating step of cumulating, a second pattern information creating step of creating, a visit pattern information storing step of storing, a visit pattern change determining step of determining, and a facility change information creating step of creating in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The interpretation of the claimed units and/or sections are directed to the reference numbers of Figures 1 and 6. The map information storage unit 121, vehicle travel information storage unit 122, and visit pattern information storage section 123 are interpreted as part of the storage unit 12. The storage unit 112 is defined “The storage unit 12 is configured by semiconductor memory or the like, and stores programs for control called firmware or operating system, various programs such as programs for performing parking positional information collection processing, visit pattern information creation processing, visit pattern change determination processing and facility change information creation processing, and further various information such as map information.” (spec P[0021]), and is interpreted as a computer memory device (typical memory). The parking position recording unit 111, visit pattern information creation section 112, first visit pattern information creation section 1121, second pattern information creation section 1122, visit pattern change determination section 113, facility change information creation section 114, receiving unit 110A, and vehicle travel information recording unit 110B are interpreted as part of the controller 11. The controller 11 is defined “The controller 11 is configured from an arithmetic processing unit such as a microprocessor, and performs control of each part constituting the information analysis device 1.” (spec P[0020]), “The controller 11 is configured from a CPU, RAM, ROM and a microprocessor having I/O, etc.” (spec P[0029]) and is interpreted as a such (typical computer processor). The claimed “steps of” of claim 5 are interpreted to be performed by the storage unit 12 and the controller 11, and are interpreted in the same way as recited for claims 1 and 2.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3 thru 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 5 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 5 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information analysis device comprising:
a communication unit;
a receiving unit which receives, via the communication unit, successive positional information from a plurality of vehicles as vehicle travel information together with time information;
a vehicle travel information recording unit which creates a vehicle travel information table including at least departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle;
a map information storage unit which stores map information including facility information indicating an attribute of a facility for a plurality of facilities and parking lot information of the facility linked to the facility;
a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores the vehicle travel information table collected within a second predetermined time;
a parking position recording unit which collects and stores the parking positional information included in the vehicle travel information table, the parking positional information corresponding to parking lot information of the facility;
a visit pattern information creation section which creates visit pattern information related to the facility, based on the vehicle travel information table of the plurality of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and includes:
a first visit pattern information creation section which cumulates a total number of vehicles parked in every time slot in which parking was started in the parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and creates first visit pattern information related to the facility; and
a second visit pattern information creation section which creates second visit pattern information different from the first visit pattern information related to the facility, based on the vehicle travel information table of a plurality of vehicles parked in the parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit;
a visit pattern information storage section storing visit pattern information related to the facility by date/time and/or every day of the week, the visit pattern information storage section storing, by date/time and/or ever day of the week, first visit pattern information related to the facility and second visit pattern information related to the facility;
a visit pattern change determination section which determines that the visit pattern information related to the facility stored in the visit pattern information storage section changed after a designed time period designated in advance; and
a facility change information creation section which creates facility change information indicating a change in the facility information when the visit pattern change determination section determines that both the first visit pattern information related to the facility and the second visit pattern information related to the facility have changed.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could analyze the stored stat to create a pattern, total the number of vehicles, and create pattern of change based on the stored and gathered information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as a method performed by a computer and thus also recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An information analysis device comprising:
a communication unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a receiving unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which receives, via the communication unit, successive positional information from a plurality of vehicles as vehicle travel information together with time information (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
a vehicle travel information recording unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which creates a vehicle travel information table including at least departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle;
a map information storage unit which stores map information (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) including facility information indicating an attribute of a facility for a plurality of facilities and parking lot information of the facility linked to the facility;
a vehicle travel information storage unit which stores a vehicle travel information table (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) including at least departure positional information, date/time information of departing, parking positional information, date/time information of parking and parked hours of a plurality of vehicles, the departure positional information being positional information of a vehicle departing, the parking positional information being positional information of the vehicle in a case of there being no change for at least a predetermined time in the positional information of the vehicle;
a parking position recording unit which collects and stores the parking positional information (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) included in the vehicle travel information table, the parking positional information corresponding to parking lot information of the facility;
a visit pattern information creation section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which creates visit pattern information related to the facility, based on the vehicle travel information table of the plurality of vehicles parked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and includes:
a first visit pattern information creation section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which cumulates a total number of vehicles parked in every time slot in which parking was started in the parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit, and creates first visit pattern information related to the facility; and
a second visit pattern information creation section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which creates second visit pattern information different from the first visit pattern information related to the facility, based on the vehicle travel information table of a plurality of vehicles parked in the parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit;
a visit pattern information storage section storing visit pattern information (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) related to the facility by date/time and/or every day of the week, the visit pattern information storage section storing, by date/time and/or ever day of the week, first visit pattern information (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) related to the facility and second visit pattern information related to the facility;
a visit pattern change determination section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which determines that the visit pattern information related to the facility stored in the visit pattern information storage section changed after a designed time period designated in advance; and
a facility change information creation section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which creates facility change information indicating a change in the facility information when the visit pattern change determination section determines that both the first visit pattern information related to the facility and the second visit pattern information related to the facility have changed.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the claimed units and section, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The communication unit is an element that is routine, well understood and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d).II.) because a communication unit is used for transmitting and/or receiving data (i.e. transmitter, receiver or transceiver).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 5 recites, a method performed by a computer (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the method comprising the steps of the [limitations addressed above regarding claim 1].
Regarding the additional limitation of a computer performing the method steps, this limitation amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 5 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 5 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the additional limitations of the units, the sections and a computer, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim limitations are directed to a computer performing storing of information, creating and determining pattern information, and changing the pattern information. These functions of a computer are well-understood, routine and conventional to include the examples of performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory (see MPEP 2106.05(d).II.ii. thru iv.). The additional elements of the claims perform the well-understood, routine and conventional functions, while the abstract idea can be performed by mental activity.
Regarding the additional limitation of receives successive positional information from a plurality of vehicles as vehicle travel information together with time information, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The additional limitation of receives successive positional information from a plurality of vehicles as vehicle travel information together with time information, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as they merely consist of data gathering which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data to a process that only recites creates patterns of information (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of analyzing information. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 3 and 4 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to the second visit pattern information creation section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) creates the second visit pattern information as summary value information of departure positional information for every grid cell, obtained by plotting and cumulating the departure positional information of the vehicle in every predetermined grid cell created in the map information, based on a vehicle travel information table of vehicle sparked in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit.
Dependent claim 4 is directed to the second visit pattern information creation section (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) creates second visit pattern information related to the facility by cumulating parked hours of the vehicle parking in a parking lot of the facility collected by the parking position recording unit for every time slot in which parking was started.
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitations of the units, and the sections (claims 3 and 4), these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Related Art
The examiner notes the prior art of Noguchi et al PGPub 2020/0387153 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Noguchi et al is directed to a parking lot management system a parking space state table of the parking lot map information (Figures 8 and 13).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662