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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed1/2/2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 14-15 and 19-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “background of Applicant's specification describes, inter alia, computer processing burdens in comparing whether an entering vehicle is a same vehicle as an exiting vehicle from some area, and, by claim features, such as those of claim 1, and also of the other independent claims separately, the specification describes that such computer processing burdens may be reduced. See originally-filed specification paragraphs [0002]-[0038]”, (see remarks , pg. 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, one of the aspects learned from Desjardin, that technical improvements are described. Applicant assert entire portion of specification paragraphs 0002 – 0038, without pinpointing which parts of the Applicant’s specification exactly present an improvement similar to Desjardin, the paragraphs state what the improvement is, but it doesn’t specify the how for the improvement, specification doesn’t provide detailed facts for the improvement like Desjardin.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “in considering whether a claim reflects improvements, see the current USPTO Director's Aug. 4, 2025 Memorandum1 Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 indicating, at page 4, that the "...the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome..." is relevant to such inquiry. And so, comparing the particularity of the claims, such as claim 1, to the particularity of the alleged abstract idea, as described at pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action ("certain methods of organizing human activity grouping" and "methods of organizing human activity grouping"), it seems clear that claim 1 is more particular that the rejection's alleged abstract idea and is not "merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome" but instead "covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome". For example, claim 1 is at least more particular than the rejection's alleged abstract ideas”, (see remarks , pg. 16-17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims filed 1/2/2026 present aspects that demonstrate organizing human activity, as an individual with a database can collect and record data with respect to vehicles entering and exiting an area, as claims state acquiring license plate information, then performing a collation for the license plates. Then individual can make a determination with the data for a result which identifies identical vehicles, an individual can also determine when the license plates are not identical by comparison of the collected license plate data. Observing and analyzing the computing elements listed in the claims does not show an improvement to the computing elements aside from the computing elements merely applying the abstract idea, and performing as the computing elements generically would.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “But the claims here are clearly dissimilar to those examples, and are also dissimilar to any other example provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). And so, respectfully the rejection here clearly exceeds the meaning of "certain" which was supposed to limit the Office's finding of claims within that subgrouping of its alleged "abstract ideas" to just those examples. As such, it is requested that the rejection also be withdrawn for these additional reasons. The rejection's Step 2B will be discussed respectfully, at least in view of the above ARP Decision's page 9 note (emphasized above with a star) as "without adequate explanation". For example, see Ex Parte Hannun', a USPTO informative decision, in which a primary and two supervisory Examiner's assertions in an Examiner's Answer about alleged state of the art at Step 2B, was rejected (in just a single paragraph) by the PTAB as insufficient factual evidence, or in other words, "without adequate explanation", which could be considered striking in view of the nearly dozen pages of alleged state of the art asserted by that Examiner's Answer... irrelevant to the Step 2A Prong 1 inquiry of whether a claim feature is directed to an abstract idea, seems at least informative, if not dispositive, to the Step 2B inquiry in this application and these claims. And in other words, even if, for the sake of argument, the claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea, arguendo, the ordered combination of the claimed elements constitutes an inventive concept that is significantly more than the idea itself.”, (see remarks , pg. 21-23).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Applicant has a misinterpretation of the rule, claims deemed to be novel and nonobvious don’t hold weight towards 101 eligibility, rather it’s the content of computing elements in the claims operating in an order combination to show autonomous progression with one another without human intervention. One example Examiner suggests for claims seen in the past with similar functions with respect to parking lots or vehicles entering and exiting an area, would be controlling a gate automatically to open/close upon determination of identical/not identical plates at the entrance/exit of the designated area.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for evaluation of license plates of vehicles entering and exiting a facility.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 9-10 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “acquire license plate information of an entering vehicle and supplemental information related to the entering vehicle, associate the license plate information and the supplemental information with each other, and store the associated information in a [...]; acquire the license plate information and the supplemental information of an exiting vehicle; perform first collation processing of collating the license plate information of the exiting vehicle with the license plate information of the entering vehicle stored in the [...]; determine, when both of a result of the first collation processing and reliability of the license plate information meet a criterion, the entering vehicle being a vehicle identical with the exiting vehicle, based on the result of the first collation processing; perform, when at least one of the result of the first collation processing and the reliability of the license plate information does not meet the criterion, second collation processing of collating the supplemental information of the exiting vehicle with the supplemental information of the entering vehicle stored in the [...]; and determine, when at least one of the result of the first collation processing and the reliability of the license plate information does not meet the criterion, the entering vehicle being a vehicle identical with the exiting vehicle, based on the result of the first collation processing and a result of the second collation processing, wherein acquiring the license plate information of the entering vehicle comprises analyzing a captured of the entering vehicle, acquiring the license plate information of the exiting vehicle comprises analyzing a captured of the exiting vehicle, and computing the reliability of the license plate information is based on: a similarity between text in the captured of the entering vehicle and text in the captured of the exiting vehicle, and at least one of a template, a time period when the captured of the entering vehicle is captured, a time period when the captured of the exiting vehicle is captured, and a weather condition when the captured of the entering vehicle is captured, and a weather condition when the captured of the exiting vehicle is captured” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (apparatus, memory, processor, storage unit, image of claim 1; computer, storage unit, image of claim 9; medium, computer, storage unit, image of claim 10) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (apparatus, memory, processor, storage unit, image of claim 1; computer, storage unit, image of claim 9; medium, computer, storage unit, image of claim 10). The apparatus, memory, processor, storage unit, image of claim 1; computer, storage unit, image of claim 9; medium, computer, storage unit, image of claim 10, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the apparatus in claims 2-8, 15; processor in claims 5-8; storage unit of claim 5-6, 14-15 and 19-20; computer in claims 14-15 and 19-20; medium in claims 16-20;=, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that dependent claims 5, 14 and 19 have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628