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, 13, 15, 19, and 23 were amended. Claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, 16-18, 20-22, and 24-25 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).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page 7 of Applicant’s Response, filed November 10, 2025, 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 The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection in regards to Claim(s) 15, 19, and 23, have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 8-17 Applicant’s Response, filed November 10, 2025, 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) 8-11, 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, the data message being structured for automated processing,” 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 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 receives location information of a user, which the entity can provide resource options to a user. The user is then able to select a resource option, which the entity will record the selection, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as determining, 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) 9-10, 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 precise location coordinates. 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 gathering manipulating, 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. 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 above analysis.
Third, Applicant argues, on page(s) 11-13, that the invention provides that the application 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 specification paragraph 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 estimating accuracy of a determined location, which the location and the accuracy can also include an elevation component. The elevation is particularly useful in the case of multi-storey car parks, multi-storey showrooms or multi-level lockers (of one or more floors), where the subset thus also excludes resource spaces on levels that are outside the accuracy in terms of the elevation component, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0038, 0043-0044, 0059, and 0064. Thus, when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
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, 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, which at best amounts 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. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant argues, on page 14, that Claim 15 provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application when the data is formatted for automated processing by the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location thus providing a technical feature of formatting and processing that goes beyond generic data transmission. 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.
Here in this case applicant states that this process allows a transformation of data for that goes beyond generic data transmission, see applicant’s argument on page 14. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in a blanket conclusory manner first by merely providing that a resource space identifier can be recorded in an electronic key cabinet, which the automated key cabinet can store the vehicle and/or user identifier in the automated key cabinet, see applicant specification paragraph 0033-0034 and 0038. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement.
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 format, store, and associate identifier information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., key cabinet and physical key storage location), 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. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Fifth, Applicant argues on page(s) 9, 13-14, and 16, that the system provides a technical process of improving accuracy while providing quantified accuracy metrics for intelligently filtering resource options. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, unlike the court in Bascom 827 F.3d at 1343, that found “filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior.” Id. at 1348. However, the court opined that the claims “‘are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. at 1350 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357). Specifically, the court found that the claims do not preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet; rather, they recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content.” Id. The court found that “[t]he inventive concept described and claimed in the ’606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Id. “BASCOM explains that the inventive concept rests on taking advantage of the ability of at least some ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account.” Id. Also, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Here, in this case, applicant’s claims are not as narrowly claimed as Bascom. In fact, applicant doesn’t recite any filtering step(s)/function(s) in the Independent Claim(s) nor does applicant disclose any algorithmic filters and how those algorithm filters are used to accomplish the result of solving accuracy concerns. Furthermore, the claims recite the functional results to be achieved rather than implementation details. Thus “these claims in substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent-eligible." See, the above analysis; also, see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, applicant recites the abstract ideas of determining, presenting, selecting, receiving, generating, and transmitting, respectively, while using a general-purpose computer (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, and a non-transitory computer readable medium), see the above sections for that analysis. But, it should be noted that Bascom recognized that filtering itself is an abstract idea, such that claims like these that “merely recite the abstract idea…along with the requirement to perform it on…a set of generic computer components,” do not contain an inventive concept, see Bascom 827 F.3d at 1350. Also, see Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data..,” (MPEP 2106.05(f)); and a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast to the claim in Bascom, the step(s)/function(s) of “determining a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy of the determined location based on at least one of a satellite- based localisation device or a local radio beacon device," and "generating and transmitting, to an automated key cabinet over a wireless communication channel, a data message comprising the identifier of the utilized resource space, the data message being structured for automated processing by the automated key cabinet,” recites the bare abstract idea. The claim does not disclose how an algorithmic filter is being implemented. It only claims the result.
Specifically, the claim in Bascom required (1) the filtering to be executed at the ISP server and then (2) “associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements,” personalizing the filtering to the specific user making the request. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345. The court identified this implementation as a “technology-based solution” to the content filtering problem when the filter is placed at the user’s computer where a computer literature user can modify or thwart the filter and get access to restricted content. Bascom at 1344, 1351. In this case, the step(s)/function(s) of the claim recites “determining,” and “generating,” location information to determine a subset of resource spaces, but does not recite how the determination of this estimated accuracy location information is specifically being implemented. The “determination,” and “generating,” step(s)/function(s) as currently recited merely states the result of the generating step(s)/function(s) without claiming how the abstract principle is implemented.
Also, it’s important to note that while a transformation recited in a claim is relevant if the degree to which the recited article is particular. However, a transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(c)(2). Here, in this case applicant’s limitations of merely determining, presenting, selecting, receiving, generating, and transmitting, respectively, resource information, using generic 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, and a non-transitory computer readable medium), are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception thus not enough to provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Sixth, Applicant argues on 16-17, that the Claims are significantly more similar to Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The ARP also found the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
However, applicant’s claims are not as narrowly claimed as Ex Parte Desjardins. In fact, applicant doesn’t recite any machine learning algorithm in the step(s)/function(s) in the Independent Claim(s) nor does applicant disclose how the algorithmic learning is trained to learn new tasks while providing better accuracy, nor is it disclosed in applicants claims/specification how a machine learning algorithm is used to accomplish the result of solving accuracy issues. Furthermore, the claims recite the functional results to be achieved rather than implementation details. Thus “these claims in substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent- eligible." See, the above analysis; also, see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 17-19 of Applicant’s Response, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 15-25, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
However, as an initial matter, applicant argues that Nicolaas (US 10,401,188 B2) should not be considered prior art since the “predetermined radius is not the same as applicant’s “estimated accuracy of the determined location.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with this argument.
In this case, examiner points applicant’s attention to their Drawings filed on 12/28/2024. The drawings show a radius of the location of the parking area and/or lockers, see Fig. 1B, 7. Furthermore, the radius of the parking areas and the lockers are positively labeled as applicants estimated accuracy, see applicant’s specification paragraphs 0043-0044.
Here, Nicolaas 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, see Column 13, Lines 30-37. Nicolaas et al., also, teaches Point of interest maps can be selected based on a predetermined radius of the location of the device (e.g., estimated accuracy of the determined location), see Column 16, Lines 22-33 and 62-67. Nicolaas et al., further, teaches a first and second point of interest (e.g., subset of resource spaces) can be selected as being within the radius of the devices location, see Column 17, 1-7. The point of interest locations along with the map can be communicated to the device (e.g., presented). Nicolaas et al., also, teaches the points of interest can include parking areas, see Column 8, Lines 50-55. Examiner, respectfully, notes Nicolaas et al., Fig 10, shows a similar diagram of the estimated accuracy (e.g., radius), as shown in applicant’s Fig. 1B, 7. Therefore, Nicolaas predetermined radius teaches applicants estimated accuracy of the determined location. Therefore, applicants arguments in this regards are not persuasive.
Applicant, also, argues that Nicolaas (US 10,401,188 B2) should not be considered prior art since the radius parameters are used exclusively for predicting vehicle movement and pre-fetching map data to ensure timely POI notifications and not for addressing location accuracy considerations. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with this argument.
As an initial matter, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In this case, Nicolaas is still considered prior art because Nicolaas predetermined radius, which is similar to the estimated accuracy, is used for predicting vehicle movement. While applicant relies on a different advantage that the estimated accuracy radius is used for address location accuracy. Because applicant and Nicolaas have different recognized advantage’s it does not negate or invalidate the teachings of Nicolaas when applicant has merely recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. Thus, the teachings of a different advantage does not rebut prima facie obviousness when the differences would otherwise be obvious in nature. Therefore, Nicolaas can still be considered prior art even based on its different advantage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made, see MPEP 2161.01 (I).
Applicant has newly added Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 to recite “determining…an estimated accuracy of the determined location based on at least one of a satellite-based localisation device or a local radio beacon device…,” Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specification, drawings, and original claims lack written description for determining the estimated accuracy of the determined location.
Applicant’s specification at best teaches a location can be determined, based on satellite-based localisation system, such as GPS or based on local radio beacons, see paragraph 0041 or applicant’s specification. The system can determine location of the user device, which a subset of resource spaces are presented to the user device, see paragraph(s) 0041-0042 of applicant’s specification. The subset of resource spaces are determined and selected based on the estimated accuracy, see paragraph(s) 0032, 0038, and 0043. However, as pointed out above the system does not determine an estimated accuracy based on one of the satellite-based localisation device or a local radio beacon device. Also, the specification lacks the algorithm for performing the determination step(s)/function(s) for how this determination of the estimated accuracy is done. At best applicant’s specification merely provides that a location of the user is determined based on the satellite-based localisation system, such as GPS or based on local radio beacons. Thus, examiner, respectfully, notes that applicant has not provided sufficient description in the specification, original claim(s), and/or drawings as to the above limitation. As a result, these limitation(s) will be considered new matter
Applicant. Also, has newly added in Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 to recite “generating…the data message being structured for automated processing by the automated key cabinet….” Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specification, drawings, and original claims lack written description for determining the estimated accuracy of the determined location
Applicant, provides a user can input data, which the system will receive the user input indicating a selection of one resource space of the presented subset of resource spaces. The selected one resource space corresponds to the utilised resource space. The user inputting the identifier of the parking bay using a virtual or physical keyboard/keypad of the user device 2 or by tapping on the screen where the identifier of the utilised resource space is displayed…which the user can use a touch screen of the user device 2 to point to the appropriate parking bay identifier, see applicants specification paragraph 0046. Applicant, also, the user device will then provide data to an automated key cabinet, which the data comprises the identifier of the utilised resource space, see applicants specification paragraph 0047.
However, in this case, the limitations provide the user is able to input an identifier for the parking bay, which the identifier will then be sent to the automated key cabinet. However, as pointed out above the system does not generate a data message, which the data message is structured for automated processing. Also, the specification lacks the algorithm for performing the generating step(s)/function(s) for how this data message is generated and structured. At best applicant’s specification merely provides that the identifier is entered into a mobile device and then transmitted to an automated key cabinet. Thus, examiner, respectfully, notes that applicant has not provided sufficient description in the specification, original claim(s), and/or drawings as to the above limitation. As a result, these limitation(s) will be considered new matter.
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).
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, the data message being structured for automated processing.,” 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). 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. 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, as described in Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13. The key cabinet and physical key storage location 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 data comprises the identifier of the utilised resource space for use to associate the identifier,” 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, 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, 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, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komooka (JP-2020064509-A) in view of Nicolaas et al. (US 10,401,188 B2) and further in view of Grainger et al. (US 8,996,030 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Komooka, teaches a method for recording an identifier of a utilized resource space selected from a plurality of resource spaces, the method being performed by a user device, the method comprising:
determining a location of the user device and
presenting, on a display of the user device, a subset of resource spaces, based on the determined location of the user device. (Paragraph(s) 0031-0032 and 0058)(Komooka teaches the locker management device can receive the user terminal location. The locker management device can notify the user terminal of a locker list (e.g., resource spaces), which is locker information indicating one or more selected lockers. The user terminal can then display the locker list (e.g., presenting a subset of resource spaces) received from the locker management device). Komooka, also, teaches that the lockers displayed can be based on the user terminal position (e.g., location) and the movement towards a locker destination, see paragraph 0058)
the presenting comprising selecting the subset of resource spaces based on the determined location of the user device and
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. (Paragraph 0032)(Komooka teaches the user via the user terminal can select (e.g., user input) a locker to be served from the locker list displayed on the display unit of the user terminal)
generating and transmitting, to an automated key cabinet over a wireless communication channel, a data message comprising the identifier of the uitlised resource space, the data message being structured for automated processing by the automated key cabinet. (Paragraph(s) 0027-0028, 0039 and 0069-0070)(Komooka teaches the user can select one of the locker from the plurality of lockers displayed on the display unit of the user’s terminal (i.e., user interface). The user terminal can then notify the locker management device (e.g., automated key cabinet) the locker ID (e.g., generating identifier of the utilized resource space) indicating the selected locker. Komooka, further, teaches a communication network (i.e., communication channel) that is connected with the locker management device and the user terminal)
With respect to the above limitations: while Komooka teaches determining a set of lockers based on the users terminal position/location. Komooka, also, teaches the user can notify the locker management device the locker ID indicating the selected locker. However, Komooka, doesn’t explicitly teach the presenting comprises selecting the subset of lockers based on an estimated accuracy of the determined location. However, Komooka, doesn’t explicitly teach determining an estimated accuracy of the determined location.
But, Nicolaas et al. in the analogous art of communicating Points of interest to a mobile device, teaches
selecting the subset of resource spaces based on an estimated accuracy of the determined location. (Column 8, Lines 50-55); (Column 13, Lines 30-37); (Column 16, Lines 23-33 and 62-67); and (Column 17, Lines 1-7)(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 (e.g., satellite-based localisation device), 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 (e.g., estimated accuracy of the determined location). Nicolaas et al., further, teaches a first and second point of interest (e.g., subset of resource spaces) 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 (e.g., presented). Nicolaas et al., also, teaches the points of interest can include parking areas, see Column 8, Lines 50-55)
location of the user device based on at least one of a satellite-based localisation device or a local radio beacon device. (Column 13, Lines 30-37); and (Column 16, Lines 23-33)(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 (e.g., satellite-based localisation device), for determining the location of the device based on the GPS signals)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka, by incorporating the teachings of determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more points of interest to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to prevent POIs that are irrelevant or will not be passed from being displayed. (Nicolaas et al.: Column 2, Lines 38-67)
With respect to the above limitations: while Nicolaas et al. teaches presenting comprises selecting the subset of lockers based on an estimated accuracy of the determined location. However, Komooka and Nicolaas et al., doesn’t explicitly teach determining an estimated accuracy of the determined location.
But, Grainger et al. in the analogous art of using a beacon to determine accurate locations, teaches determining an estimated accuracy of the determined location. (Column 13, Lines 49-67); (Column 14, Lines 1-14 and 30-40)(Grainger et al. teaches a mobile device can use the location of one or more beacons (e.g., local radio beacon device) in a beacon network to determine a more accurate estimate of its own location (e.g., determining an estimated accuracy of the determined location based on a local radio beacon device). The accuracy can be measured in kilometers, miles, and/or degrees of longitude, see Column 14, Lines 30-40. Grainger et al., also, teaches that the system can be for parking garages)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka and determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more points of interest to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., by incorporating the teachings of using a mobile device and beacons to determine a more accurate estimate of a location of Grainger et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a more accurate estimate of the mobile device location. (Grainger et al.: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 2, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Komooka, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the utilized resource space is a parking bay within a parking area, and wherein the utilized resource space is a parking bay in which a vehicle is parked.
But, Nicolaas et al. in the analogous art of communicating Points of interest to a mobile device, teaches wherein the utilized resource space is a parking bay within a parking area, and wherein the utilized resource space is a parking bay in which a vehicle is parked. Column 8, Lines 50-55); (Column 13, Lines 30-37); (Column 16, Lines 23-33 and 62-67); and (Column 17, Lines 1-7)(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 (e.g., satellite-based localisation device), 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 (e.g., estimated accuracy of the determined location). Nicolaas et al., further, teaches a first and second point of interest (e.g., subset of resource spaces) 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 (e.g., presented). Nicolaas et al., also, teaches the points of interest can include parking areas, see Column 8, Lines 50-55
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka, by incorporating the teachings of determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more parking areas to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to prevent POIs that are irrelevant or will not be passed from being displayed. (Nicolaas et al.: Column 2, Lines 38-67)
Regarding Claim 3, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./ Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein, the data includes at least one of an identifier of the user or an identifier of a resource in the utilized resource space. (Paragraph(s) 0048, 0069, and 0085)(Komooka teaches the locker management device can receive a user ID (e.g., identifier of the user), see paragraph(s) 0048 and 0085. Komooka, also, teaches that the locker management device can receive a locker ID (e.g., an identifier of a resource in the utilized resource space) upon the user selecting a locker)
Regarding Claim 4, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the utilized resource space is a locker within a set of lockers, and wherein the utilized resource space is a locker that the user has selected. (Paragraph(s) 0031-0032)(Komooka teaches the locker management device can notify the user terminal of a locker list (e.g., set of lockers), which is locker information indicating one or more selected lockers. The user terminal can then display the locker list (e.g., set of lockers). Komooka, further, teaches the user via the user terminal can select (e.g., selected) a locker to be served from the locker list displayed on the display unit of the user terminal)
Regarding Claim 7, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches a user device for recording an identifier of a utilized resource space selected from a plurality of resource spaces, the suer device comprising:
A processor. (Paragraph 0035)(Komooka teaches a control unit (e.g., processor))
A memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the user device to: (Paragraph 0037)(Komooka teaches a read only memory that stores a program executed by the control unit (e.g., processor))
determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy of the determined location based on at least one of a satellite-based localisation device or a local radio beacon device. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
present, on a display of the user device, a subset of resource spaces, based on the determined location of the user device, which comprises selecting the subset of resource spaces based on the determined location of the user device and the estimated accuracy of the determined location. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
receive 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. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c))
generate and transmit, to an automated key cabinet over a communication channel based at least party on a wireless interface, a data message comprising the identifier of the utilized resource space, the data message being structured for automated processing by the automated key cabinet. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d))
Regarding Claim 8, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein the utilized resource space is a parking bay within a parking area, and wherein the utilized resource space is a parking bay in which a vehicle is parked. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 7)
Regarding Claim 9, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein, the data includes at least one of an identifier of the user or an identifier of a resource in the utilized resource space. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 7)
Regarding Claim 10, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein the utilized resource space is a locker within a set of lockers, and wherein the utilized resource space is a locker that the user has selected. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 7)
Regarding Claim 13, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for recording an identifier of a utilized resource space selected from a plurality of resource spaces, the computer program comprising computer program code which, when executed on a user device, causes the user device to: (Paragraph 0037)(Komooka teaches a read only memory that stores a program executed by the control unit (e.g., processor))
determine a location of the user device and an estimated accuracy of the determined location based on at least one of a satellite-based localisation device of a local radio beacon device. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
present, on a display of the user device, a subset of resource spaces, based on the determined location of the user device, which comprises selecting the subset of resource spaces based on the determined location of the user device and the estimated accuracy of the determined location. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
receive 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. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c))
generate and transmit, to an automated key cabinet over a communication channel based at least party on a wireless interface, a data message comprising comprises the identifier of the utilized resource space, the data message being structured for automated processing by the automated key cabinet. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d))
Claim(s) 15, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komooka (JP-2020064509-A) in view of Nicolaas et al. (US 10,401,188 B2) and Grainger et al. (US 8,996,030 B2), and further in view of Lingala et al. (US 2019/0246276 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., do not explicitly teach wherein comprises the identifier of the utilised resource space for use by the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location.
But, Lingala et al. in the analogous art of lock boxes, teaches wherein comprises the identifier of the utilised resource space for use by the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location. (Paragraph(s) 0042-00044)(Lingala et al. teaches a key box that can include one or more lock boxes. The key box includes a key box identifier associated the key box and the access controlled location. The key box identifier can be formatted as a barcode, QR code, or other code fixed to the key box. Lingala et al., further, teaches that the key box identifier is associated with the lock, the key, and the key box)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka and determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more parking areas to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., and using a mobile device and beacons to determine a more accurate estimate of a location of Grainger et al., by incorporating the teachings of associating a formatted key box identifier with a key box, key box lock, and the key of the key box of Lingala et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to increase security for accessing a key box. (Lingala et al.: Paragraph(s) 0002-0004)
Regarding Claim 19, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Lingala et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein the data is formatted for automated processing by the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 15)
Regarding Claim 23, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Lingala et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13 and wherein the data is formatted for automated processing by the key cabinet to associate the identifier with a physical key storage location. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 13 and 15)
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komooka (JP-2020064509-A) in view of Nicolaas et al. (US 10,401,188 B2) and Grainger et al. (US 8,996,030 B2) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0095350 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., do not explicitly teach further including determining the subset of resource spaces based on excluding resource spaces on levels outside the estimated accuracy.
But, Chen et al. in the analogous art of providing points of interest, teaches further including determining the subset of resource spaces based on excluding resource spaces on levels outside the estimated accuracy. (Paragraph(s) 0029, 0035, 0048, and 0053)(Chen et al. teaches point of interests can be displayed based on the mobile devices particular vicinity threshold such as the mobile device being within a certain amount of meters (e.g., estimated accuracy). Chen et al., further, teaches points of interest that are located at a distance of less than a certain distance from a user will be considered as being within the vicinity of the mobile device. Points of interest that are at a distance greater than the certain distance may be considered as being outside the vicinity of the mobile device. Chen et al., also, teaches a vicinity can be considered to be 25 meters, such that when areas that are outside of that vicinity will not be visible on the mobile device (e.g., excluding resource spaces). Chen et al., also, teaches that the points of interest can include parking garages)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka and determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more parking areas to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., and using a mobile device and beacons to determine a more accurate estimate of a location of Grainger et al., by incorporating the teachings of not making points of interest visible on a mobile device when the mobile device and the points of interest are outside of 25 meters of Chen et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to efficiently display points of interest on a map without the map becoming congested. (Chen et al.: Paragraph(s) 0005-0006)
Regarding Claim 20, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Chen et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein the memory storing instructions further cause the user device to determine the subset of resources spaces based on excluding resource spaces on levels outside the estimated accuracy. (See, relevant rejection of Claim(s) 7 and 16)
Claim(s) 17, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komooka (JP-2020064509-A) in view of Nicolaas et al. (US 10,401,188 B2) and Grainger et al. (US 8,996,030 B2) and further in view of Bamidele et al. (US 2014/0044306 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., do not explicitly teach
the estimated accuracy includes an elevation indication.
determining the subset of spaces based on excluding resources spaces is based on the elevation indication.
But, Bamidele et al. in the analogous art of determining points of interest, teaches
the estimated accuracy includes an elevation indication. (Paragraph 0030-0031)(Bamidele et al. teaches a mobile device can determine points of interest based on elevation data, latitude and longitude coordinates, and polar coordinates)
determining the subset of spaces based on excluding resources spaces is based on the elevation indication. (Paragraph(s) 0030-0032)(Bamidele et al. teaches a mobile device can determine points of interest based on elevation data, latitude and longitude coordinates, and polar coordinates. Bamidele et al., further, teaches that mobile terminal can determine one or more points of interest proximate to the location of them mobile terminal. The points of interest that are relative proximate to the current location of the mobile terminal will be displayed (e.g., excluding resources spaces based on elevation indication) based on the expressed as polar coordinates relative to the mobile terminal)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka and determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more parking areas to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., and using a mobile device and beacons to determine a more accurate estimate of a location of Grainger et al., by incorporating the teachings of using relative polar coordinates and elevation to determine points of interest, which the points of interest closer will be displayed of Bamidele et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve the user visual experience for identifying points of interest. (Bamidele et al.: Paragraph(s) 0004, 0029 and 0056)
Regarding Claim 21, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Bamidele et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and
the estimated accuracy includes an elevation indication. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 17(a))
determining the subset of spaces based on excluding resources spaces is based on the elevation indication. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 17(b))
Regarding Claim 24, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Bamidele et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13 and wherein the computer program code further causes the user device to determine the subset of resource spaces based on excluding resource spaces on levels outside the estimated accuracy, wherein:
the estimated accuracy includes an elevation indication. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 13 and 17(a))
determining the subset of spaces based on excluding resources spaces is based on the elevation indication. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 13 and 17(b))
Claim(s) 18, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komooka (JP-2020064509-A) in view of Nicolaas et al. (US 10,401,188 B2) and Grainger et al. (US 8,996,030 B2) and further in view of Miller (US 9,651,396 B1).
Regarding Claim 18, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the presenting comprises presenting the subset of resource spaces on the display with the subset being ordered based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy.
But, Miller in the analogous art of determining POI’s, teaches wherein the presenting comprises presenting the subset of resource spaces on the display with the subset being ordered based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy. (Column 8, Lines 19-35); (Column 9, Lines 1-9, 25-51); and (Column 10, Lines 1-7)(Miller teaches a computing device can query a provided point location, a logarithmic distance function, such that POI results that are close by will be strongly favored or considered more relevant than POI results that are further away from the location of the user. The system can provide the user POI location 306 and location 312 may not be provided for display as the distances from the user goes beyond a certain distance are consequently discounted. Miller, further, teaches the system can determine a distance function based on a POI distance being within .5 kilometers. The system can then rank the POI’s based on the distance function)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify determining the location of a mobile device in a locker setting of Komooka, determining the radius of a predetermined location of the mobile device location and then providing one or more parking areas to the mobile device of Nicolaas et al., and using a mobile device and beacons to determine a more accurate estimate of a location of Grainger et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining POI’s based on the user location and a distance function that determines the POI’s are within .5 kilometers distance of Miller, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to efficiently rank POI’s and get rid of less relevant POI’s quickly. (Miller: Column 2, Lines 20-58)
Regarding Claim 22, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Miller, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein the presenting comprises presenting the subset of resource spaces on the display with the subset being ordered based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 18)
Regarding Claim 25, Komooka/Nicolaas et al./Grainger et al./Miller, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13 and wherein the presenting comprises presenting the subset of resource spaces on the display with the subset being ordered based on the determined location and the estimated accuracy. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 13 and 18)
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 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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