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 Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 15-25 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, were amended. Claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, and 15-25 were previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 5 and 11 were cancelled on 02/04/2025. Claim(s) 6 and 12 was cancelled on July 22, 2025. Claim 14 was cancelled on 12/28/2023. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 15-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority filed in Sweden on June 29, 2021, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 19, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page(s) 7-9 of Applicant’s Response, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection in regards to Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 14-24 Applicant’s Response, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 15-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 15-16, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, do not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea. Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 recite “determining a location,” “presenting, a subset of resource spaces, based on the determined location, the presenting comprising selecting the subset of resource spaces based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy of the determined location,” “receiving user input indicating a selection of one resource space of the presented subset of resource spaces, wherein the selected one resource space corresponds to the utilized resource space,” and “generating and transmitting, a data message comprising the identifier of the utilized resource space for associating with a storage location,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and user(s), which, the entity logs an asset’s location and associates a physical key with that specific location, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as determining, recording, presenting, and selecting parking space and/or locker information. Thus, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 16-18, that the Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, do not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Mental Processes,” since the process uses satellite-based localisation device or a local radio beacon device thus humans cannot mentally determine/calculate positioning accuracy estimates from satellite geometry or beacon signal strength data. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Unlike, SiRF Tech. 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17, where the court provided the claims could not be performed mentally when the claims to a method recited calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites. But, similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite determining a location and receiving user input (e.g., collecting). The system can select a subset of resource space based on the user location information (e.g., analyzing). The system will present to a user a subset of resource spaces (e.g., display) since the limitations can performed by a human seeking resource information and an entity making a parking/locker reservation are similar to an entity merely making evaluation(s) and/or judgment(s). Thus, applicants claims are not specialized hardware but the claims broadly recite steps or functions for collecting, gathering, analyzing, and displaying data. The court in Electric Power Group explained merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes.
Furthermore, it should be noted while applicant argues that the Satellite GPS systems or radio beacon devices to determine location coordinates and accuracy estimates cannot be performed mentally. However, there is nothing in the claims or the specification as to how the satellite systems or radio beacon devices calculate positioning accuracy through trilateration algorithms, some sort of precision techniques, and/or pseudoranges. Merely determining/collecting/receiving location data using a generic computer has been determined to be merely a mental process. See, the following court cases e.g., Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 701 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (concluding that claims directed to providing a processing function based on “receiving . . . a Global Positioning System (GPS) location indication from each of a plurality of mobile devices” and “matching . . . each said GPS location indication with [a specific] geo graphic location” in a database were patent ineligible (cita tion and internal quotation marks omitted)); Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (concluding that claims describing “coordinated geospatial and list-based mapping” were patent ineligible (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). To the contrary, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing in formation is limited to particular content or a particular source, that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, Case: 24-1003 Document: 54 Page: 8 Filed: 05/02/2025 8 GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation and in ternal quotation marks omitted); and Geoscope Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Nos. 2024-1003, 2025 WL 1276235, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2025) (determining locations of mobile devices using signals from known locations and existing technology is an abstract idea). However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see the above analysis.
Third, Applicant argues, on page(s) 19-22, that the invention is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is 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. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to conveniently select the utilized resource space. For instance, in the parking space scenario, while GPS may not be sufficiently accurate to conclusively identify a particular bay identifier, in a large parking area, the significant reduction of number of potential bay identifiers makes the selection of bay identifier more convenient and less prone to errors, see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 19-20 and specification paragraph(s) 0005 and 0042-0043. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely stating subset of resource spaces is selected based on the location of the user device and an estimated accuracy of the determined location. This reduces the number of possible identifiers of resource spaces. Based on the accuracy of the location determination, only the possible resource spaces are presented to the user and the user conveniently selects the utilized resource space. For instance, in the parking space scenario, while GPS may not be sufficiently accurate to conclusively identify a particular bay identifier, in a large parking area, the significant reduction of number of potential bay identifiers makes the selection of bay identifier more convenient and less prone to errors, see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 19-20 and applicant’s specification page(s) 0005 and 0043. This at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., determining and presenting resource information) itself rather than a technological improvement.
Applicants specification, also, provides the system in the parking space scenario, while GPS may not be sufficiently accurate to conclusively identify a particular bay identifier, in a large parking area, the significant reduction of number of potential bay identifiers makes the selection of bay identifier more convenient and less prone to errors, see applicant’s arguments on page 20 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0043. This is also at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., determining parking bays/resource spaces) itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner. Thus, when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
While applicant provides that the limitations creates a machine-to-machine interaction between the user device and the automated key cabinet that results in a physical outcome in which the key cabinet associates the resource space identifier with a physical key storage location thus providing a technical solution. Examiner, respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more depends on whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See, MPEP 2106.05(g) and (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively, see MPEP 2106.05(b). In this case, applicant provides the system generate and transmit a data message over a wireless communication channel to an automated key cabinet to store key location data (e.g, gathering and outputting data) thus merely gathering data and transmitting that data is at best extra-solution activity, thus not enough for integrating a judicial exception or providing significantly more.
Furthermore, applicant states that limitations recite the problem in a post-occupation state, see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 20-21. This merely bolsters the argument for insignificant extra-solution activity. See, extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, merely providing data-gathering steps after a post-solution step is not enough for integrating the judicial exception into significantly more.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is 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. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely determining, presenting, selecting, receiving, generating, and transmitting, parking and/or locker information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a user device, satellite based localisation device, a local radio beacon device, an automated key cabinet, a wireless interface, a processor, a memory, wireless communication channel, and a non-transitory computer readable medium), which are no more than using instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components wherein the focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea thus merely amounting to “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when conveniently storing allowing user to conveniently find and access vehicles, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0031 and 0035. The system also conveniently input and select resource space information, see paragraph 0043 and 0048, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of selecting and viewing reservation information and storing keys thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case location and user selection information can be received (e.g., gathering). The system will then select a subset of resource spaces based on the location of the user (e.g., analyzing). The system will then present the subset of resource spaces (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering input request information, determining one or more resource options, and then presenting the resource option information to a user are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining parking bay and/or locker information and storing identifiers based on the selection(s) of the resource options.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides automating a previously manual process of an user remembering or noting down the resource space identifier when depositing a key into a cabinet, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0004, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant hasn’t provided any technical details, in the claim(s) or specification, of how the estimated location accuracy is determined using novel and non-conventional techniques, thus at best amounting to “Apply it.”
Examiner, respectfully, notes as currently claimed, there is no claimed difference between a generic key locker and the automated key cabinet (e.g., generating and transmitting data messages that comprises the identifier to the automated key cabinet has no nexus). Applicant’s claims do not provided any detail as to how the automated key cabinet process the identifier information, nor has applicant provided what happens once that data is processed (e.g., does the key cabinet open/close, etc). Thus, there is no nexus that would be considered significantly more than the abstract idea and/or extra-solution activity. There is a lack of detail in the claims as to how the automated key cabinet is improved. Applicant’s claim(s) nor specification provide how the automated key cabinet is improved such how the data alters the specific data structure or some type of physical control based on receiving the key storage location and how that improves the functionality of the automated key cabinet. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant argues on page(s) 21-22, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, are patent eligible similar to Core Wireless because the limitations recite an improved interface for particularly presenting resource space options that are filtered by location and estimated accuracy after a resource has been placed thus applicant’s limitations are patent eligibility. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Core Wireless was considered eligible because the claims provided an improved user interface specifically for “small screen devices.” The claims were “directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.”
In this case, applicant has provided that the user device can be a smartphone, a tablet computer or a wearable device, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0030. Unlike Core Wireless, applicant’s specification provides that the invention is not necessarily limited to just small screen devices. As previously mentioned, applicant provides that the user device can be for large devices (e.g., table computer) and/or small screen devices (e.g., smartphone and wearable device), thus the interface could be displayed on many different screen sizes. Therefore, there is no improvement to a technology or technical field and the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Fifth, Applicant argues on page(s) 22-24 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims cover a particular solution of using the accuracy characteristics of positioning hardware to constrain the selectable options and transmit the result to a specialized physical device for automated processing, thus reciting significantly more than any judicial exception under 2B. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant hasn’t provided any technical details, in the claim(s) or specification, of how the estimated location accuracy is determined using novel and non-conventional techniques, thus at best amounting to “Apply it.” Furthermore, applicant’s limitations are not as narrowly claimed. Applicant’s limitations lack the details as to how the satellite or beacon hardware accuracy characteristics are used to constrain the option presented.
Also, see Geoscope Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Nos. 2024-1003, 2024-1018, 2025 WL 1276235, at *2–3 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2025) (claims to determining the location of a mobile device by collecting data about known locations and comparing that data to measurements from the mobile device merely collect and analyze data and display results of the collection and analysis as an abstract idea). Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Sixth, Applicant argues on page(s) 23-24 of applicants’ arguments, that the Examiner has failed to analyze the inventive arrangement and interaction of these components in the context of the amended claims. Examiner, has failed to consider the order combination of these elements that provides the inventive concepts. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: (1) Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; (2) Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): (3) Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re- evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and (4) Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d), see MPEP 2106.5(B)(II).
Examiner respectfully notes that in the Final Office Action mailed 02/19/2026 on page(s) 6-17 and 31, the Step 2B prong was used to analysis the previous Step 2A Prong Two additional elements that merely amounted to describing how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment thus Examiner carried over the identification of the additional elements and conclusions of the additional elements that were analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, which the analysis also explained how the limitations were not an improvement to the technology.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely determining, presenting, receiving, generating, and transmitting, respectively, utilized resource space identifier information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a user device, a satellite-based localization device, local radio beacon device, automated key cabinet, wireless communication channel, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, and memory), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception
It should also be noted that when making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a particular element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). In this case, examiner provided why these limitations are not sufficient to show an improvement (e.g., Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, TLI Communications, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., and 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and how the limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see the above analysis in the argument section(s). Thus, the claims do not provide an improvement to the presenting location based options. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 9-14, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 recites an entity determining a location of a user, which the entity will then present resource spaces to the user for selection. The user can then make a selection of the resource space and then the selected resource space identifier will be stored. Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., evaluation, judgment, and/or observation).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 recites “determining a location,” “presenting, a subset of resource spaces, based on the determined location, the presenting comprising selecting the subset of resource spaces based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy of the determined location,” “receiving user input indicating a selection of one resource space of the presented subset of resource spaces, wherein the selected one resource space corresponds to the utilized resource space,” and “generating and transmitting, a data message comprising the identifier of the utilized resource space to associate with a physical key storage location,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes. For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 7,and 13, are similar to an entity that providing resource spaces to a user based on the user’s location, which the entity can store the identifier of the selected resource space. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a user device, a display, an automated key cabinet, wireless communication channel, satellite-based localisation device, and a local radio beacon device; Claim 7: a processor, a memory, a user device, a display, satellite-based localisation device, local radio beacon device, wireless communication channel, and an automated key cabinet; and Claim 13: a non-transitory computer readable medium, a user device, a display, satellite-based localisation device, local radio beacon device, wireless communication channel, and an automated key cabinet) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “determining,” “presenting,” “selecting,” “receiving,” “generating,” and “transmitting,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a user device, a display, an automated key cabinet, wireless communication channel, satellite-based localisation device, and a local radio beacon device; Claim 7: a processor, a memory, a user device, a display, satellite-based localisation device, local radio beacon device, wireless communication channel, and an automated key cabinet; and Claim 13: a non-transitory computer readable medium, a user device, a display, satellite-based localisation device, local radio beacon device, wireless communication channel, and an automated key cabinet). Examiner, notes that the user device, display, automated key cabinet, wireless communication channel, satellite-based localisation device, local radio beacon device, processor, memory, a user device, and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely determining, presenting, receiving, generating, and transmitting, resource space information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., user device, display, automated key cabinet, wireless communication channel, satellite-based localisation device, local radio beacon device, processor, memory, a user device, and non-transitory computer readable medium), which are no more than using instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components wherein the focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea thus merely amounting to “applying,” the judicial exception
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 194. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it.” Here, in this case the system will acquire identifier information, which, the data is formatted (e.g., manipulating data) for the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location thus at best applicant’s additional limitations amount to the words "apply it. Examiner, also, notes that there is no identification in the claims or written description of specific, unconventional techniques for performing this formatting of identifier data.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when conveniently storing allowing user to conveniently find and access vehicles, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0031 and 0035. The system also conveniently input and select resource space information, see paragraph 0043 and 0048, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of selecting and viewing reservation information and storing keys thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case location and user selection information can be received (e.g., gathering). The system will then select a subset of resource spaces based on the location of the user (e.g., analyzing). The system will then present the subset of resource spaces (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering input request information, determining one or more resource options, and then presenting the resource option information to a user are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining parking bay and/or locker information and storing identifiers based on the selection(s) of the resource options.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides automating a previously manual process of an user remembering or noting down the resource space identifier when depositing a key into a cabinet, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0004, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 194. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it.” Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-10: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-5 and 8-11, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 7, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 15, 19, and 23: The additional limitation of “processing,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13. The key cabinet is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “wherein the data comprises the identifier of the utilised resource space for use to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely processing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Similar to, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 194. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it.” Here, in this case the system will acquire identifier information, which, the data is formatted (e.g., manipulating data) for the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location thus at best applicant’s additional limitations amount to the words "apply it. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 15, 19, 23 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
Claim(s) 16 and 20: The additional limitation of “determining,” and “excluding,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 7. The memory and user device are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “including determining the subset of resource spaces based on excluding resource spaces on levels outside the estimated accuracy,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining and excluding, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 16 and 20 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
Claim(s) 17, 21, and 24: The additional limitation of “determining,” and “excluding,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13. The user device and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “the estimated accuracy includes an elevation indication,” and “determining the subset of spaces based on excluding resource spaces is based on the elevation indication,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining and excluding, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the limitations fail to provide how the elevation component accomplishes the determination of elevation and how the determination improves the accuracy of the elevation component. The limitations lack the details as to how the elevation component determination is being accomplished to improve the computers capabilities/function. The claims, however, are broadly functional and focused on the results, rather than the computer implementation thus the step(s)/function(s) lack how the results are being accomplished. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 17, 21, and 24 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
Claim(s) 18, 22, and 25: The additional limitation of “presenting,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13. The user device, the display, and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “wherein the presenting comprises presenting the subset of resource spaces with the subset being ordered based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely presenting, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Similar to, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC., the court provided that arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system enables a user to conveniently find and access a vehicle based on the information provided to a user, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0035, since the user interface merely provides optimal resource spaces to a user to process the information more quickly doesn’t show an improvement in computer-functionally or technology. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 17, 21, and 24 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
The dependent claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, and 15-25, above do 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, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 15-25 are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, are distinguished from the art.
Komooka (JP-2020064509-A). Komooka teaches a user terminal can input location information into the user terminal. A locker management device can then acquire the location information of the user terminal. Komooka, also, teaches that the lockers displayed can be based on the user terminal position and the movement towards a locker destination. Komooka, also, teaches the locker management device can receive the user terminal location. The locker management device can notify the user terminal of a locker list, which is locker information indicating one or more selected lockers. The user terminal can then display the locker list. Komooka, also, teaches that the lockers displayed can be based on the user terminal position and the movement towards a locker destination. Komooka, further, teaches the user via the user terminal can select a locker to be served from the locker list displayed on the display unit of the user terminal. The user can select one of the locker from the plurality of lockers displayed on the display unit of the user’s terminal. The user terminal can then notify the locker management device the locker ID indicating the selected locker. Komooka, further, teaches a communication network. However, Komooka, doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location. The prior art does the opposite of applicants limitations. This prior preforms the steps before the resource is placed in the utilized resource space, which is the opposite from what applicant is claiming.
Nicolaas et al. (US 10,401,188 B2). Nicolaas et al. teaches a navigation device that includes a mobile device. The mobile device includes can include satellite navigation signals like GPS and/or Galileo, for determining the location of the device based on the GPS signals. Nicolaas et al., also, teaches Point of interest maps can be selected based on a predetermined radius of the location of the device. Nicolaas et al., further, teaches a first and second point of interest can be selected as being within the radius of the devices location. The point of interest locations along with the map can be communicated to the device. Nicolaas et al., also, teaches the points of interest can include parking areas. However, Nicolaas et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
Grainger et al. (US 8,996,030 B2). Grainger et al. teaches a mobile device can use the location of one or more beacons in a beacon network to determine a more accurate estimate of its own location. The accuracy can be measured in kilometers, miles, and/or degrees of longitude. However, Grainger et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
Uchiyama (JP-2006219934-A). Uchiyama teaches a rental company that stores keys for rental cars. However, Uchiyama, doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
Brown et al. (US 9,582,949 B2). Brown et al. teaches a ley exchange system that scans key identifiers, which will be relayed to the key exchange server for tracking key locations. Brown et al., further, teaches the a user can arrive at a key exchange center with a key set to drop-off. The system can identify the key location via the client device. When the key set is dropped off at the key exchange center its key token is scanned to read the encoded unique key identifier. The key is then placed in the key cabinet or other key holding apparatus for storing key sets.. Brown et al., further, teaches that once an authorized user is pick-up the keys then the system will provide a bin number location of the keys and an access code. However, Brown et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location. The prior art does the opposite of applicants limitations. This prior preforms the steps before the resource is placed in the utilized resource space, which is the opposite from what applicant is claiming.
Simpson et al. (US 9,329,588 B2). Simpson et al. teaches a system for managing a fleet of vehicles including a reservation system. The system includes a key cabinet for storing rental keys for vehicles. A user that has reserved a vehicle is provided a code to unlock the key cabinet to retrieve the keys. However, Simpson et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location. However, Simpson et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
Lee et al. (US 10,366,260 B2). Lee et al. teaches a key locker that stores vehicle keys. However, Lee et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
Mosgrove et al. (US 2004/0150508 A1). Mosgrove et al. teaches a key set storage area, which accommodates the keys for a vehicle. However, Mosgrove et al., doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
“Valet Key Boxes Protect Your Business,” The Valet Spot Blog, April 4, 2014, (hereinafter Valet). Valet teaches valet key boxes that store vehicle keys. However, Valet, doesn’t explicitly teach after the resource is placed in the resource space then the system will determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy location. The system will then present a subset of resource spaces and the user will provide input to the resource space. The system will then generate and transmit to the automated key cabinet a physical key storage location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
