DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed January 5, 2025, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in the application. The applicant has cancelled claim 20. The applicant has added claim 21. The applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 11, and 15-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process that could be performed in the human mind by a human observer using a pad of paper and a pen without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining environment information around a target vehicle comprising parking information of a parked vehicle, determining a reference vehicle based on the parking information, and determining a target virtual parking slot based on parking information of the reference vehicle. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite elements that constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-20 depend from claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process that could be performed in the human mind by a human observer using a pad of paper and a pen without significantly more. The claim recites displaying environment information around a target vehicle comprising parking information of a parked vehicle, user selection of a reference vehicle from among the parked vehicles, and displaying a target virtual parking slot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of an electronic device comprising a processor and memory is merely the recitation at a high level of generality of generic computing elements to perform well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the electronic arts. These elements merely link the claimed activities to a particular technological environment or field of use. Such links do not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 because claims 12-14 depend from claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process that could be performed in the human mind by a human observer using a pad of paper and a pen without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining environment information around a target vehicle comprising parking information of a parked vehicle, determining a reference vehicle based on the parking information, and determining a target virtual parking slot based on parking information of the reference vehicle. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of an electronic device comprising a processor and memory is merely the recitation at a high level of generality of generic computing elements to perform well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the electronic arts. These elements merely link the claimed activities to a particular technological environment or field of use. Such links do not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 16-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 because claims 16-18 depend from claim 15.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process that could be performed in the human mind by a human observer using a pad of paper and a pen without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining environment information around a target vehicle comprising parking information of a parked vehicle, determining a reference vehicle based on the parking information, and determining a target virtual parking slot based on parking information of the reference vehicle. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein that are executed by a processor is merely the recitation at a high level of generality of generic computing elements to perform well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the electronic arts. These elements merely link the claimed activities to a particular technological environment or field of use. Such links do not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19 because claim 21 depends from claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1, 11, 15, and 19 are objected to as being rejected under Section 101 but would be allowable if the Section 101 rejections were avoided without materially changing the scope of the claims.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 21 are objected to for the same reasons as claims 1, 11, 15, and 19 because claims 2-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 21 depend from claims 1, 11, 15, and 19, respectively.
Response to Arguments
6. The applicant's arguments, filed January 5, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-19.
Against the Section 101 rejections, the applicant argues that that the claims cannot be considered abstract as directed to a mental process, because the claim features cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, "determining a reference vehicle based on the parking information of the one or more parked vehicles and a first operation of a user that indicates to select the reference vehicle from the one or more parked vehicles, wherein the reference vehicle is one of the one or more parked vehicles and the first operation of the user is received via a first user
interface displayed by the target vehicle" is a step that cannot be practically performed in the
human mind.
Further, even if the claim could be considered abstract, Applicant submits that the combination of additional elements integrates the judicial exception into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer. For example, analogous to the McRo case, the claims enable the automation of specific tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. See McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1100-01 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, first user interface displayed by the target vehicle applies any alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Still further, Applicant submits that the combination of additional elements amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. For example, determining a reference vehicle based on the parking information of the one or more parked vehicles and a first operation of a user that indicates to select the reference vehicle from the one or more parked vehicles, wherein the reference vehicle is one of the one or more parked vehicles and the first operation of the user is received via a first user interface displayed by the target vehicle constitute additional elements that operate in unconventional and non-routine ways.
Regarding this argument, the claims recite mental processes that could be performed in the human mind by a human observer using a pad of paper and a pen without significantly more. The recitation of user interfaces is superfluous because the claims do not connect the collection of vehicle and parking data to the user interfaces. There is no recitation of the collection of parking information of the reference vehicle, for example by sensors, such as cameras, or the transmission of such information to the target vehicle or to a user’s mobile computing device, for example by radio transmission. Therefore, construing the claims according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, a human observer’s visual observations of a reference vehicle and its environment qualify as “parking information of the reference vehicle.” The generic recitation of user interfaces merely places the claimed invention in the context of a mobile computing device. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Against the Section 101 rejections, the applicant argues that Furthermore, Applicant submits that the Office Action fails to individually consider each of the claims, which is impermissible. For example, the Office Action states that "Claims 2-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-20 depend from claim 1." See Office Action, page 3. The MPEP, however, provides that "Examiners should examine each claim for eligibility separately, based on the particular elements recited therein. Claims should not be judged to automatically stand or fall with similar claims in an application." See e.g., MPEP $2106.04 and $2106.05. In another example, the Office Action fails to address independent claim 11.
Regarding this argument, the above Final Rejection individually addresses claim 11, so this argument is moot.
Conclusion
7. 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689