Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/581,395

PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Final Rejection §101§102
Filed
Feb 20, 2024
Examiner
LEITE, PAULO ROBERTO GONZ
Art Unit
3663
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
44 granted / 85 resolved
At TC average
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
120
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§103
67.0%
+27.0% vs TC avg
§102
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 85 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims This Office Action is in response to the response to Non-Final Rejection filed September 17, 2025. Claims 1 and 7-11 are presently pending and presented for examination. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-031405, filed March 1, 2023. Response to Amendment The examiner recognizes that all original rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 previously stated for the original claims 1-9 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed September 4, 2025, with respect to the section titled Claim Rejection -35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the Non-Final Rejection filed June 6, 2025, has been withdrawn. During the examiner’s interview held on September 4, 2025, Examiner stated that the proposed amendments seemed to overcome the rejection of record as previously stated for claim 1. Upon further review however, Examiner has found that the amended limitations are taught by Budiscak et al. (US 20230406130; hereinafter Budiscak) as outlined below. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of record is maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Budiscak et al. (US 20230406130; hereinafter Budiscak). Regarding Claim 1, Budiscak teaches A parking management system for a predetermined facility with multiple parking spaces, including a first parking space and a second parking space, (Budiscak: Abstract and Paragraph [0046]) the parking management system comprising a first information management section configured to manage first parking information related to parking in the first parking space and first vehicle information related to vehicles parked in the first parking space; (Budiscak: Paragraph [0059]; Charging Management System 100) a second information management section configured to manage second parking information related to parking in the second parking space and second vehicle information related to vehicles parked in the second parking space; (Budiscak: Paragraph [0059]; Charging Management System 100) a condition determination section configured to determine the existence of a space condition in which a parkable space exists in the second parking space based on the second parking information of the second information management section, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0036]) and determine an existence of a movable condition where a movable vehicle exists in the first parking space based on the first vehicle information of the first parking management section; (Budiscak: Paragraph [0036], [0062], [0067) and a movement instruction output section (Budiscak: Paragraph [0039], [0041]) configured to, in response to the condition determination section determining that the space condition is satisfied and the movable condition is satisfied, output a movement instruction to move, among the vehicles parked in the first parking space, a vehicle for which the movable condition is satisfied to the second parking space by automatic operation, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0063], [0067]; “After charging the battery 12 and again in accordance with the charging strategy, the motor vehicle 10 is parked in the waiting area 50 until it is picked up by the user.”) and discharge a battery installed in the vehicle to supply power to a predetermined facility, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0047]-[0048]; The cited paragraph teaches that the non-charging parking spots or “stop positions” which may be configured to be “Vehicle-to-Grid, V2G” which means that the charge of the batteries of the vehicles may be discharged into the power grid of the parking facility.) wherein the vehicle is configured to be driven automatically in response to the movement instruction, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0047], [0062]; “The movement of the motor vehicle 10 within the parking lot is preferably fully automated.”) the first parking space is a chargeable parking space configured to charge a battery installed in a parked vehicle in the first parking space, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0058]; Charging positions 62) the second parking space is a dischargeable parking space configured to discharge a battery installed in a parked vehicle in the second parking space, and (Budiscak: Paragraph [0047]-[0048], [0058]; “The shown parking lot includes a waiting area 50 comprising a plurality of waiting positions 52 (as stop positions),...”) the movable condition includes a condition in which an energy storage ratio of the battery installed in the vehicle is equal to or greater than a first predetermined energy storage ratio. (Budiscak: Paragraph [0027]; “The determination of the charging strategy can also take into account specific requirements that can be part of a charging request. According to the present invention, in particular requirements such as ... a target state of charge of the battery of the motor vehicle to be charged, which can in particular be wishes of a user, such as ... a desired state of charge after charging, can thus be part of the charging request.” and [0063]; “After the charging process, the motor vehicle 10 comprising the battery 12 that is now charged in accordance with the charging strategy (illustrated in FIG. 1 with the indication 100%) is moved to the pick-up area 70.”) Regarding Claim 7, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations: ... charge a battery installed in the vehicle, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0061]) wherein the vehicle is configured to be driven automatically in response to the movement instruction, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0047], [0062]; “The movement of the motor vehicle 10 within the parking lot is preferably fully automated.”) the first parking space is a chargeable parking space configured to discharge the battery installed a parked vehicle in the first parking space, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0047]-[0048]; The cited paragraph teaches that the non-charging parking spots or “stop positions” which may be configured to be “Vehicle-to-Grid, V2G” which means that the charge of the batteries of the vehicles may be discharged into the power grid of the parking facility. and [0058]; “The shown parking lot includes a waiting area 50 comprising a plurality of waiting positions 52 (as stop positions),...”) the second parking space is a dischargeable parking space configured to charge the battery installed in a parked vehicle in the second parking space, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0058]; Charging Positions 62) and the movable condition is a condition where an energy storage ratio of the battery installed in the vehicle is less than a second predetermined energy storage ratio. (Budiscak: Paragraph [0038]) Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1. Regarding Claim 8, Budiscak teaches The parking management system according to claim 1, wherein The multiple parking spaces further include a delivery parking space where a parked vehicle in the delivery parking space is to be handed over to a user. (Budiscak: Paragraph [0066]; Pick-Up Area 70) Regarding Claim 9, Budiscak teaches The parking management system according to claim 8, wherein the movable condition includes a condition where the energy storage ratio of the battery installed in the vehicle is the energy storage ratio specified by the user. (Budiscak: Paragraph [0027]; “The determination of the charging strategy can also take into account specific requirements that can be part of a charging request. According to the present invention, in particular requirements such as ... a target state of charge of the battery of the motor vehicle to be charged, which can in particular be wishes of a user, such as ... a desired state of charge after charging, can thus be part of the charging request.” and [0063]; “After the charging process, the motor vehicle 10 comprising the battery 12 that is now charged in accordance with the charging strategy (illustrated in FIG. 1 with the indication 100%) is moved to the pick-up area 70.”) Regarding Claim 10, Budiscak teaches The parking management system according to claim 1, wherein the movement instruction output section is configured to output a further movement instruction to move, among the vehicles parked in the second parking space, a further vehicle installed with a battery with an energy storage ratio less than the first predetermined energy storage ratio to the first parking space, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0063]; The system is configured to charge the battery of a vehicle when said charge is less than 100% charge (i.e. the first energy storage ratio is 100% and when the charge of the vehicle is less than 100%, said vehicle is moved to a charging spot and charged based on its charging strategy).) and charge the battery installed in the further vehicle. (Budiscak: Paragraph [0062]) Regarding Claim 11, Budiscak teaches The parking management system according to claim 7, wherein the movement instruction output section is configured to output a further movement instruction to move, among the vehicles parked in the second parking space, a further vehicle installed with a battery with an energy storage ratio more than the second predetermined energy storage ratio to the first parking space, (Budiscak: Paragraph [0007], [0027]; When the charge of the vehicle reaches or surpasses the target state of charge described in the charging strategy, charging is stopped and the vehicle is moved to a waiting area.) and discharge the battery installed in the further vehicle to supply power to a predetermined facility. (Budiscak: Paragraph [0047]-[0048]; The cited paragraph teaches that the non-charging parking spots or “stop positions” which may be configured to be “Vehicle-to-Grid, V2G” which means that the charge of the batteries of the vehicles may be discharged into the power grid of the parking facility. and [0058]; “The shown parking lot includes a waiting area 50 comprising a plurality of waiting positions 52 (as stop positions),...”) 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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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. /P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Aug 26, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590808
METHOD FOR RECOMMENDING PARKING, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589754
MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING A FIRST DRIVE MACHINE AND A SECOND DRIVE MACHINE CONFIGURED AS AN ELECTRIC MACHINE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570415
UAV WITH MANUAL FLIGHT MODE SELECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559916
WORK MACHINE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR INDICATING IMPLEMENT POSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12533986
APPARATUS AND APPLICATION FOR PREDICTING DISCHARGE OF BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+17.8%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 85 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month