DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response / amendments filed on 12 December 2025, and the remarks filed on 17 July 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12 and 14-17 have been amended.
Claims 6, 13, 20-21 are cancelled.
Claims 2, 4, 7 and 18-19 are original / previously presented.
Claims 22-24 are new.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 22-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection of claims 8-14, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the objection is rescinded. However, note that amendments have prompted a different objection to claim 14.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 6, 13, 20, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “Claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test… Applicant respectfully submits that the claim is patent eligible under prong two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application… Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim 1 recites a processor configured to ‘acquire a first face image obtained by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle entering the parking lot and a second face image, obtained after the first face image, by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle exiting the parking lot, and …generate, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information; transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user terminal.’ Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test” (Remarks pg. 16-17). Examiner disagrees. First, the additional element in claim 1 (individually and in combination) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a user terminal, parking lot terminal, server, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technology or field of use (facial recognition, biometrics) and adding high-level extra-solution activities (storing data / record keeping, data gathering, transmitting data). These do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Second, the argued limitation to acquire a first face image obtained by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle entering the parking lot and a second face image, obtained after the first face image, by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle exiting the parking lot does not provide a practical application, because it is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the insignificant extra-solution data gathering (as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining) which is not a practical application. Third, the argued limitations to ‘generate, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information’ and ‘transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user terminal’ are recognized as part of the judicial exception in Step 2A prong one (generating a temporary password here is certain methods of organizing human activities: mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions; transmitting a temporary password here is certain methods of organizing human activities: mitigating risk, commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), and the user terminal here represents ‘applying’ the judicial exception on a generic / general purpose computer, which is not a practical application. Also note that this step of transmitting is claimed at such a high level of detail that it also amounts to extra-solution transmitting data (as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent acquiring / paying), which is not a practical application. Since the additional elements in these limitations either implement the judicial exception with general purpose computers, or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, these do not provide a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “claim 1, as amended, provides an ‘inventive concept,’ and does not simply append well-understood, routine, or conventional activities” (Remarks pg. 18). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, i.e. an inventive concept. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception on generic / general-purpose computer components (a user terminal, parking lot terminal, server, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium), generally linking the use of the exception to a technology or field of use (facial recognition, biometrics), and adding high-level extra-solution activities (storing data / record keeping, data gathering, transmitting data); which in Step 2B do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. In addition, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Regarding the computer components, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0013], ¶[0023] describing the additional element of a user terminal at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0024-27] describing the additional element of a parking lot terminal (with a vehicle sensor unit, face image acquisition unit, display unit) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030-31] describing the additional element of the server (with a storage unit) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding communicating, this represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023] describing the additional element of the server communicating with user terminals and the parking lot terminal at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding acquiring / capturing face images, this represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s background ¶[0004] detailing that it is known to have a parking lot management system that recognizes the face of a driver of a vehicle entering a parking lot, and leaving a parking lot. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[[0026] describing the additional element of a parking lot terminal includes a camera that acquires a face image obtained by capturing an image at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding storing, this represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s background ¶[0004] detailing that it is known to have a parking lot management system that stores the face of a driver of a vehicle entering a parking lot as face data. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030-31] describing the additional element of the server storage unit storing user information and registered face information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding inputting, this represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0041] describing the additional element of the parking lot terminal input fields for the user to enter the temporary password at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, the additional element activities are routine, well-understood, conventional and do not provide evidence that the limitations are significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 6, 13, 20, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi). However, please note the following.
Applicant argues” the cited references do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to…transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user terminal” by highlighting / bolding this limitation (Remarks pg. 20). Examiner disagrees. This limitation is taught by Robinson. Robinson col 5 ln 47-65, col 8 ln 51-67 details the PTS (Parking Transaction System) providing a registered user with a user identifier at the AS (Authorization Station) such as a system identification code (SID) that can be used to aid the system in locating the storage location of a user record, e.g. locating the user record on exit when presenting the biometric / identifying data, and the PTS may include multiple AS which may include a telephone in which the user interacts with biometric data and/or user identifier SID. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the cited references do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to… perform, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the temporary password information stored in storage, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information” by highlighting / bolding this limitation (Remarks pg. 20-21). Examiner disagrees. This limitation is taught by Robinson. Robinson Fig 1, col 6 ln 62 through col 7 ln 8, col 11 ln 8-23, col 12 ln 18-25 details using the SID (i.e. temporary password information) that is stored on the user record with an AS (authorization station) to assist with the locating of the user record which once identified is used to debit a financial account for exit payment. This argument is not persuasive.
Priority
This application 18/721,242 filed on 18 June 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2021/047632 filed on 22 December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 18 June 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7, 14, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5, 7, 22:
Claims 2-5, 7, 22 each include the limitation “wherein the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to”, which are missing the word “are” between ‘server’ and ‘configured’ (e.g. wherein the one or more processors of the server are configured to execute the instructions to…). The Office recommends amending to add this omission for clarity.
Claims 14:
Claim 14 includes two commas after the word determining in the limitation “determining,, using the server, the parking fee further based on the purchase history”. The Office recommends removing one of the commas for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 22-24:
Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 7, 22 recite a system; claims 8-12, 14, 23 recite a method; and claims 15-19, 24 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 22-24 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: to determine, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not the first face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage; generate, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information; transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user; determine, in a case that a vehicle exits the parking lot, whether or not the second face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage; perform, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is stored in the storage as the entry information, processing for paying a parking fee for the user associated with the registered face information; acquire, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not stored in the storage as the entry information, the temporary password information by the user; and perform, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the temporary password information stored in the storage, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information. Independent claim 8 recites: determining, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not a first face image… of the user who drives the vehicle entering the parking lot, matches the registered face information; generating, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information; transmitting, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user; determining, in a case that a vehicle exits the parking lot, whether or not a second face image… of the user who drives the vehicle exiting the parking lot, matches the registered face information; performing, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is included in the entry information, processing for paying a parking fee for the user associated with the registered face information; acquiring, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not included in the entry information, the temporary password information by the user; and performing, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the stored temporary password information, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information. Independent claim 15 recites: processing for determining, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not a first face image of the user who drives the vehicle entering the parking lot, matches the registered face information; processing for generating, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information; processing for transmitting, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user; processing for determining, in a case that a vehicle exits the parking lot, whether or not a second face image… of the user who drives the vehicle exiting the parking lot, matches the registered face information; processing for performing, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is included in the entry information, processing for paying a parking fee for the user associated with the registered face information; processing for acquiring, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not included in the entry information, the temporary password information by the user; and processing for performing, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the stored temporary password information, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
The limitations of determining, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not a first face image… of the user who drives the vehicle entering the parking lot, matches the registered face information; generating, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information; transmitting, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user; determining, in a case that a vehicle exits the parking lot, whether or not a second face image… of the user who drives the vehicle exiting the parking lot, matches the registered face information; performing, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is included in the entry information, processing for paying a parking fee for the user associated with the registered face information; acquiring, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not included in the entry information, the temporary password information by the user; and performing, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the stored temporary password information, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk; commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes paying parking fee for user with registered face…, paying parking fee for user with temporary password…; mitigating risks includes determining on entry whether first face matches registered face…, generating on match temporary password information, transmitting the temporary password to user…, determining on exit whether second face matches registered face and identification information is included…, acquiring temporary password…, paying parking fee for user with temporary password…; commercial interactions includes transmitting the temporary password to user…, acquiring temporary password…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes determining on entry whether first face matches registered face…, generating on match temporary password information, transmitting the temporary password to user…, determining on exit whether second face matches registered face and identification information is included…, paying parking fee for user with registered face…, acquiring temporary password…, paying parking fee for user with temporary password; and following rules or instructions includes determining on entry whether first face matches registered face…, generating on match temporary password information, transmitting the temporary password to user…, determining on exit whether second face matches registered face and identification information is included…, paying parking fee for user with registered face…, acquiring temporary password…, paying parking fee for user with temporary password. The presence of generic computer components such as a user terminal, parking lot terminal, server, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk, commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 22-24 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. user terminal, parking lot terminal, server, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of communicating and its steps of a server that can communicate with the parking lot terminal and the user terminal; a server that can communicate with a parking lot terminal installed in a parking lot and a user terminal owned by a user are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the determining steps), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the server, parking lot terminal, user terminal (generic / general purpose computers) are only being used as a tool in the communicating, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding communicating more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (sharing information), and using computers in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of acquiring / capturing a first / second face image and its steps to acquire a first face image obtained by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle entering the parking lot and a second face image, obtained after the first face image, by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle exiting the parking lot; …a first face image obtained by capturing an image of the user who drives the vehicle entering the parking lot, the first face image being acquired by the parking lot terminal; …a second face image, obtained after the first face image, by capturing an image of the user who drives the vehicle exiting the parking lot, the second face image being acquired by the parking lot terminal are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Also, claiming face images in these limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. facial recognition, biometrics), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the parking lot terminal (general purpose computer / general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the acquiring / capturing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding acquiring / capturing more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of storing and its steps of the server comprises: a storage configured to store at least identification information on a user, registered face information of the user, and destination information of the user terminal owned by the user in association with one another; storing, using the server, as entry information, at least the identification information and the temporary password information associated with each other are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent determining and paying), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the server and storage (generic computer, general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the storing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (recording information), and using computers in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of inputting temporary password and its step of the temporary password information input by the user on the parking lot terminal is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent paying), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the parking lot terminal (general purpose computer / general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the inputting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding inputting more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of transmitting (e.g. transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user terminal) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent acquiring), and also amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the one or more processors, user terminal (generic / general purpose computers) is only being used as a tool in the transmitting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding transmitting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (communicating information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of acquiring the temporary password (e.g. acquire, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not stored in the storage as the entry information, the temporary password information… on the parking lot terminal) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent paying), and also amounts to mere gathering data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the one or more processors, parking lot terminal (generic / general purpose computers) is only being used as a tool in the acquiring, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding transmitting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (communicating information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a user terminal, parking lot terminal, server, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium); and adding high-level extra-solution activities (storing data, data gathering, transmitting data), generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technology or field of use (facial recognition, biometrics). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a user terminal, parking lot terminal, server, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium to perform determining on entry whether first face matches registered face…, generating on match temporary password information, transmitting the temporary password to user…, determining on exit whether second face matches registered face and identification information is included…, paying parking fee for user with registered face…, acquiring temporary password…, paying parking fee for user with temporary password amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0013], ¶[0023] describing the additional element of a user terminal at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0024-27] describing the additional element of a parking lot terminal (with a vehicle sensor unit, face image acquisition unit, display unit) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030-31] describing the additional element of the server (with a storage unit) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the communicating are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the determining steps), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. server, parking lot terminal, user terminal) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these communicating steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023] describing the additional element of the server communicating with user terminals and the parking lot terminal at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the acquiring / capturing a first / second face image are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. parking lot terminal) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, claiming face images in these limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. facial recognition, biometrics), and as such does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these acquiring / capturing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s background ¶[0004] detailing that it is known to have a parking lot management system that recognizes the face of a driver of a vehicle entering a parking lot, and leaving a parking lot. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[[0026] describing the additional element of a parking lot terminal includes a camera that acquires a face image obtained by capturing an image at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent determining and paying), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. server with storage) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s background ¶[0004] detailing that it is known to have a parking lot management system that stores the face of a driver of a vehicle entering a parking lot as face data. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030-31] describing the additional element of the server storage unit storing user information and registered face information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the inputting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent paying), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. parking lot terminal) in these steps merely represents using a general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these inputting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE).See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0041] describing the additional element of the parking lot terminal input fields for the user to enter the temporary password at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the transmitting (e.g. transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information to the user terminal) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the acquiring), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processors, user terminal) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these transmitting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the acquiring the temporary password (e.g. acquire, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not stored in the storage as the entry information, the temporary password information… on the parking lot terminal) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering data for subsequent paying), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processors, parking lot terminal) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these transmitting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally applied to a technology / field of use (facial recognition, biometrics), and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering / data storage / transmitting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to recognize a parking garage customer and identify records applicable for payment), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, face recognition), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of facial recognition itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 22-24. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2, 9, 16: First, the limitations to acquire, in a case that the second face image does not match the registered face information stored in the storage, the temporary password information… on the parking lot terminal; and perform, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the temporary password information stored in the storage, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of processors / server, and parking lot terminal are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on generic / general purpose computers. Second, the limitation of the temporary password information input by the user on the parking lot terminal represents an additional element (high level extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the parking lot terminal is a general purpose computer and amounts to using a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Furthermore, these inputting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE).See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0041] describing the additional element of the parking lot terminal input fields for the user to enter the temporary password at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3, 10, 17: First, the limitation wherein the storage stores the registered face information of a plurality of users in association with one piece of the identification information and one piece of the destination information is an additional element (high level extra-solution data storage). The use of the computer (i.e. storage) in these steps merely represents using a general computer component as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s background ¶[0004] detailing that it is known to have a parking lot management system that stores the face of a driver of a vehicle entering a parking lot as face data. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030-31] describing the additional element of the server storage unit storing user information and registered face information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, the limitation wherein… the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to determine, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not the first face image matches any one of the plurality of pieces of registered face information stored in the storage is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processors / server is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Third, the limitations to display, in a case that the first face image matches at least two of the plurality of pieces of registered face information, the plurality of pieces of identification information so that the user can select identification information is an additional element (high level extra-solution outputting / transmitting data and gathering data). The use of the computer (i.e. server) in these steps merely represents using a general computer component as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data, to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Furthermore, these displaying and selecting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data, gathering data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), presenting offers and gathering statistics (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0073] describing the additional element of displaying IDs and the user selecting an ID he/she wishes to use to enter at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4, 11, 18: First, the limitation to store, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage, the identification information and the temporary password information further associated with a time of entry in the storage is an additional element (high level extra-solution data storage). The use of the computers (i.e. processor / server, storage) in these steps merely represents using computers and general computer component as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s background ¶[0004] detailing that it is known to have a parking lot management system that stores the face of a driver of a vehicle entering a parking lot as face data. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030-31] describing the additional element of the server storage unit storing user information and registered face information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, the limitation to perform processing for paying the parking fee based on the time of entry stored in the storage is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitation of the parking lot terminal further comprises a vehicle detecting sensor configured to detect a vehicle entering the parking lot and a vehicle exiting the parking lot represents an additional element (high level extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the parking lot terminal and vehicle detecting sensor are a general purpose computer / general computer component and amounts to using a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Furthermore, this detecting step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[[0024-25] describing the additional element of a vehicle sensor unit that detects vehicles at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, the limitations of determine, in a case that the vehicle entering the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle detecting sensor, whether or not the first face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage; and determine, in a case that the vehicle exiting the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle detecting sensor, whether or not the second face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of one or more processors a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 14: First, the limitation wherein the storage stores a history of purchase made by a user who has parked his/her vehicle in the parking lot in a store which is in alliance with the parking lot while the user has his/her vehicle parked in the parking lot in association with the identification information on the user is an additional element (high level extra-solution data storage). The use of the computers (i.e. server, storage) in these steps merely represents using computers and general computer component as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0029], ¶[0037] describing the additional element of the server storing purchase history at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, the limitation to determine the parking fee further based on the purchase history is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12, 19: First, the limitations …the vehicle entering the parking lot has been detected by the parking lot terminal; …the vehicle exiting the parking lot has been detected by the parking lot terminal represents an additional element (high level extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the parking lot terminal is a general purpose computer and amounts to using a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Furthermore, this detecting step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[[0024-25] describing the additional element of a vehicle sensor unit of a parking terminal that detects vehicles at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, the limitations wherein the server: determines, in a case that the vehicle entering the parking lot has been detected by the parking lot terminal, whether or not the first face image matches the registered face information; and determines, in a case that the vehicle exiting the parking lot has been detected by the parking lot terminal, whether or not the second face image matches the registered face information are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the server is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 22-24: The limitation to store, in a case that the processing for paying the parking fee is completed, at least the identification information, the temporary password information, and a flag associated with each other in the storage is an additional element (high level extra-solution data storage / electronic record keeping). The use of the computers (i.e. server, storage) in these steps merely represents using computers and general computer component as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0045] describing the additional element of the server storing identification, passwords, and flags upon payment at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 15, and the dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 22-24 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 22-24 are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 7,533,809 B1 to Robinson et al. in view of US patent application publication 2017/0109942 A1 to Zivkovic et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0101453 A1 to Senthurpandi.
Claim 1:
Robinson, as shown, teaches the following:
A parking lot management system comprising:
a parking lot terminal installed in a parking lot (Robinson Fig 1, col 8 ln 64 through col 9 ln 3, claims 3-4 details a computer in a parking facility), a user terminal owned by a user (Robinson col 8 ln 64-67 details a telephone of a user), and a server that can communicate with the parking lot terminal and the user terminal (Robinson Fig 1, col 8 ln 35-43, col 8 ln 64 through col 9 ln 3, claim 9 ln 28-33 details a remote database that shares information with any of the authorization stations (i.e. phone, parking gate, computer) in the system),
wherein the parking lot terminal comprises:
a memory storing instructions (Robinson Fig 1, claims 3-4 details a computer in a parking facility); and
one or more processors (Robinson Fig 1, claims 3-4 details a computer in a parking facility) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a first face image obtained by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle entering the parking lot and a second face image, obtained after the first face image, by capturing an image of a user who drives a vehicle exiting the parking lot (Robinson Fig 1-2, col 5 ln 28-46, col 8 ln 51 through col 9 ln 3, col 10 ln 24-31, col 12 ln 18-25, claim 5 details receiving first user identifying data at the entry of a parking facility and second user identifying data at the exit of a parking facility, and the user identifying data may include biometric image facial data), and
wherein the server comprises:
a storage configured to store at least identification information on a user, registered face information of the user, and destination information of the user terminal owned by the user in association with one another (Robinson Fig 1, col 10 ln 32-65, col 15 ln 41-48, col 19 ln 20-24 details a database storing enrolled / registered information in a user record including biometric identifying data, wireless device, name, address (i.e. destination information of a user terminal), and registration can be done in advance);
With respect to the following:
a memory storing instructions ; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
Robinson, as shown in Fig 1, col 8 ln 64 through col 9 ln 1-3, claims 3-4 details a system that includes databases (i.e. server) network connected to authorization stations (i.e. parking lot terminal – computer / gate; user device - phone); but does not explicitly state that the database server includes memory and processors. To the extent that Robinson may not explicitly state this, Zivkovic teaches this limitation with a parking management server that includes a memory and processors and connected to the database for data storage (Zivkovic Fig 1, ¶[0042-43]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a server with a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors to execute the instructions as taught by Zivkovic with the teachings of Robinson, with the motivation to “reduce the amount of human intervention required” with conventional parking systems (Zivkovic ¶[0005-6]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a server with a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors to execute the instructions as taught by Zivkovic in the system of Robinson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Robinson (in view of Zivkovic, applying the server of Zivkovic as shown above) also teaches the following:
determine, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not the first face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage (Robinson Fig 2, col 5 ln 40-46, col 10 ln 24-34 details providing identifying biometric data (e.g. facial data) at an entry gate and then the system attempts to locate the identifying data stored in a user record);
With respect to the following:
generate, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, temporary password information;
Robinson, as shown in col 3 ln 56, col 5 ln 25-61, col 10 ln 24-32 details using facial data as the biometric, user registering their biometric data for a user and authorized individual with the PTS on the user record, and the PTS can provide a registered user with a user identifier / SID (i.e. temporary password information) to assist with locating the storage location of a user record, also storing the user identifier on the user record, but does not explicitly state generating in a case that the biometric (first face image) matches the registered biometric (face information), the temporary password information / identifier. However, Senthurpandi teaches this remaining limitation, such that when real-time biometric and downloaded biometric information match, then a token is created which may include application identifying information and password (i.e. temporary password information) which authenticates the user (Senthurpandi ¶[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate, in a case that the first biometric image (face image, per Robinson) matches the registered biometric information (face information, per Robinson), temporary password information as taught by Senthurpandi with the teachings of Robinson in view of Zivkovic, with the motivation “to identify and authenticate a user” (Senthurpandi ¶[0002]).
Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, applying the server of Zivkovic as shown above) also teaches the following:
transmit, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information, the temporary password information to the user terminal (Robinson col 5 ln 47-65, col 8 ln 51-67 details the PTS (Parking Transaction System) providing a registered user with a user identifier at the AS (Authorization Station) such as a system identification code (SID) that can be used to aid the system in locating the storage location of a user record, e.g. locating the user record on exit when presenting the biometric / identifying data, and the PTS may include multiple AS which may include a telephone in which the user interacts with biometric data and/or user identifier SID);
store, as entry information, at least the identification information and the temporary password information associated with each other in the storage (Robinson col 10 ln 32-48 details storing user identifying data / biometric data on a user record on entry; storing user information including name, address, phone number, identifying / contact information, and also a SID (i.e. temporary password) to assist with user recognition);
determine, in a case that a vehicle exits the parking lot, whether or not the second face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage (Robinson Fig 2, col 3 ln 47-65, col 5 ln 28-46 details when the user leaves the facility the user presents their biometric data (e.g. facial data) at an authorization station such as an exit gate which is compared to the registered biometric data);
perform, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is stored in the storage as the entry information, processing for paying a parking fee for the user associated with the registered face information (Robinson Fig 2, col 3 ln 47-65, col 5 ln 28-46, col 10 ln 45-48, col 12 ln 17-25 details after the user presents their biometric data (e.g. facial data) and it matching registered biometric data, enabling payment of the parking transaction upon the successful identification with the stored payment information on the user record);
With respect to the following:
acquire, in a case that the second face image matches the registered face information and the identification information on the exiting user is not stored in the storage as the entry information, the temporary password information input by the user on the parking lot terminal; and
Robinson, as shown in Fig 2, col 10 ln 32-48, col 11 ln 8-34 details identifying on exit when the second face image (second biometric) matches the registered face information in the user record, where the user record may reflect an enrolled user with biometrics (i.e. registered face information) and/or the user record of the entry of the user with the entry face information, and using a SID identifier (i.e. temporary password) linked to the user record to assist with recognizing the system records with the user provides the SID at an AS (authorization station) to retrieve the appropriate user record as an alternate retrieval technique; but does not explicitly state a case where the second biometric matches the registered biometric information but the identification information of the existing user is not stored the entry information, and then using the alternative retrieval technique. However, Zivkovic teaches this remaining feature, matching a biometric smart device such as fingerprint / gesture of the individual at exit (i.e. face image, per Robinson) with the pre-registered biometric and status, and identifying if there is also no corresponding entry record match for the identified biometric smart device, which then results in performing error handling such as an ‘other technique’ to obtain an identifier associated with the vehicle / user such as a license plate or magnetic signature (i.e. temporary password / SID input by the user on the parking lot terminal, per Robinson) (Zivkovic ¶[0069], ¶[0070-71], ¶[0073], ¶[0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire, in a case that the second [biometric] matches the registered [biometric] and the identification information on the exiting user is not stored in the storage as the entry information, the [other technique to identify the user / vehicle] as taught by Zivkovic with the teachings of Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi), with the motivation to assist “the management of vehicle parking sessions” and the benefit that “identifying a vehicle advantageously [does] not require any special modification of the vehicle itself” (Zivkovic ¶[0102]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include acquiring, in a case that the second [biometric] matches the registered [biometric] and the identification information on the exiting user is not stored in the storage as the entry information, the [other technique to identify the user / vehicle] as taught by Zivkovic in the system of Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi) also teaches the following:
perform, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the temporary password information stored in the storage, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information (Robinson Fig 1, col 6 ln 62 through col 7 ln 8, col 11 ln 8-23, col 12 ln 18-25 details using the SID (i.e. temporary password information) that is stored on the user record with an AS (authorization station) to assist with the location of the user record which once identified is used to debit a financial account for exit payment).
Claim 2:
Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, applying the server with one or more processors of Zivkovic executing the instructions, as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: acquire, in a case that the second face image does not match the registered face information stored in the storage, the temporary password information input by a user on the parking lot terminal (Robinson Fig 2, col 11 ln 8-23 details at conclusion of parking, presenting the SID (which could also be provided by a different person, i.e. different face) to locate the user identifier at the parking terminal); and
perform, in a case that the acquired temporary password information matches the temporary password information stored in the storage, processing for paying the parking fee for the user associated with the temporary password information (Robinson col 11 ln 8-23, col 12 ln 18-25, col 12 ln 39-56 details providing the SID as the user identifier to assist in locating the user record, and the user record includes financial information to debit a financial account for exiting the parking facility gate regardless of the user identifying data provided).
Claim 4:
Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, applying the server with one or more processors of Zivkovic executing the instructions, as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: store, in a case that the first face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage, the identification information and the temporary password information further associated with a time of entry in the storage (Robinson Fig 2, col 5 ln 28-46 and ln 47-65, col 6 ln 58-66, col 10 ln 24-55 details the system matching the user record based on the user identifying data biometric data (e.g. facial data) and creating / updating a user record that includes the SID and date and time of the parking transaction); and
perform processing for paying the parking fee based on the time of entry stored in the storage (Robinson col 10 ln 49-55, col 12 ln 26-38 details storing the date and time of the parking transaction initiation and varying the parking transaction fee per the length of the stay (e.g. an hourly rate); see also/alternatively in further support of obviousness Zivkovic Figs 4-5, ¶[0170], claim 13 storing a timestamp for the vehicle of the entry and exit times, and then computing a parking fee for the session based on the duration of time spent parking between the elapsed authorizations between the entry and exit; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Zivkovic in the system of Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 5:
Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Zivkovic (of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, applying the biometric is facial data, as per Robinson as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the parking lot terminal further comprises a vehicle detecting sensor configured to detect a vehicle entering the parking lot and a vehicle exiting the parking lot (Zivkovic ¶[0016] details a sensor to sense the presence of the vehicle at the entry location of the parking lot and a sensor to sense the presence of the vehicle at the exit location of the parking lot),
the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to:
determine, in a case that the vehicle entering the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle detecting sensor, whether or not the first face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage (Zivkovic ¶0016], ¶[0069], ¶[0095] details in response to the vehicle sensor sensing the vehicle, determine an updated value of the smart device biometric (i.e. facial data, per Robinson) at entry request and at payment to release an exit barrier); and
determine, in a case that the vehicle exiting leaving the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle detecting sensor, whether or not the second face image matches the registered face information stored in the storage (Zivkovic ¶0016], ¶[0069], ¶[0095] details in response to the vehicle sensor sensing the vehicle, determine an updated value of the smart device biometric (i.e. facial data, per Robinson) at entry request and at payment to release an exit barrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the parking lot terminal further comprises a vehicle sensor unit configured to detect a vehicle entering the parking lot and a vehicle exiting the parking lot; the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: determine, in a case that the vehicle entering the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle sensor unit, whether or not the first biometric (face image, per Robinson) matches the registered biometric (face, per Robinson) information stored in the storage; and determine, in a case that the vehicle exiting leaving the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle sensor unit, whether or not the second biometric (face image, per Robinson) matches the registered biometric (face, per Robinson) information stored in the storage as taught by Zivkovic with the teachings of Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi), with the motivation to assist “the management of vehicle parking sessions” and the benefit that “identifying a vehicle advantageously [does] not require any special modification of the vehicle itself” (Zivkovic ¶[0102]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the parking lot terminal further comprises a vehicle sensor unit configured to detect a vehicle entering the parking lot and a vehicle exiting the parking lot; the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: determine, in a case that the vehicle entering the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle sensor unit, whether or not the first biometric (face image, per Robinson) matches the registered biometric (face, per Robinson) information stored in the storage; and determine, in a case that the vehicle exiting leaving the parking lot has been detected by the vehicle sensor unit, whether or not the second biometric (face image, per Robinson) matches the registered biometric (face, per Robinson) information stored in the storage as taught by Zivkovic in the system of Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 7,533,809 B1 to Robinson et al. in view of US patent application publication 2017/0109942 A1 to Zivkovic et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0101453 A1 to Senthurpandi, as applied to claims 1 / 8 / 15, in further view of US patent application publication 2010/0150407 A1 to Cheswick.
Claim 3:
Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, applying the server with one or more processors of Zivkovic executing the instructions, as shown above) also teaches the following:
the storage stores the registered face information of a plurality of users in association with one piece of the identification information and one piece of the destination information (Robinson col 5 ln 28-46, col 6 ln 51 through col 7 ln 8, col 10 ln 38-65 details enrolling and registering parking information in a user record, and the stored information in the user record includes storing the user identifying data such as the name and biometric data, e.g. facial data), and
the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to determine, in a case that a vehicle enters the parking lot, whether or not the first face image matches any one of the plurality of pieces of registered face information stored in the storage (Robinson Fig 2, col 5 ln 28-46, col 10 ln 24-34 details the vehicle enters the parking facility and the system attempts to locate the user record by comparing the biometric user identifying data (e.g. facial data) with user identifying data stored in a user record); and
With respect to the following:
display, in a case that the first face image matches at least two of the plurality of pieces of registered face information, the plurality of pieces of identification information so that the user can select identification information.
Robinson, as shown in Fig 2, col 5 ln 40-43, col 10 ln 24-34 details the user presents biometric identifying data which may include facial data, and the system attempts to locate a matching user record; but does not explicitly state to display, in a case that the first face image matches at least two of the plurality of pieces of registered face information, the plurality of pieces of identification information so that the user can select identification information. However, Cheswick teaches this limitation, providing a face photograph to the server, finding multiple potential matches from a database and presenting these face photographs to the user, and when the user taps / selects one of the matching faces the device can display the associated name as well as more detailed information about the selected face, i.e. identification information (Cheswick Fig 3, Fig 6, ¶[0030], ¶[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying, in a case that the first face image matches at least two of the plurality of pieces of registered face information, the plurality of pieces of identification information so that the user can select identification information as taught by Cheswick with the teachings of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, with the motivation to solve the problem that matching pictures with faces is “difficult and time consuming to convert to a usable form” (Cheswick ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying, in a case that the first face image matches at least two of the plurality of pieces of registered face information, the plurality of pieces of identification information so that the user can select identification information as taught by Cheswick in the system of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 7,533,809 B1 to Robinson et al. in view of US patent application publication 2017/0109942 A1 to Zivkovic et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0101453 A1 to Senthurpandi, as applied to claims 1 and 8, in further view of Japan patent application publication JP2000-285157A to Kannomata.
Claim 7:
Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the storage stores a history of purchase made by a user who has parked his/her vehicle in the parking lot in a store which is in alliance with the parking lot while the user has his/her vehicle parked in the parking lot in association with the identification information on the user, and
Robinson, as shown in col 17 ln 20 through col 18 ln 13 details an alliance using the parking transaction system with third-party retailers / restaurants / hotels / parking facility operations, where affiliated operators can offer credits for services and the parking transaction system can offer lower prices for parking transactions such as recording the number of parking transactions (e.g. every six parking transactions a user conducts with PTS he can receive one parking transaction free), and storing a VISA credit card on the user record and tracking the use of that credit card for purchases at Waldenbooks (i.e. identifying purchases made by a user who has parked his/her vehicle in the parking lot in a store in which there is an alliance with the parking lot while the user has his/her vehicle parked in the lot), and then when the user provides a preexisting token at the conclusion of the parking session it recognizes that the credit card was used to make a purchase, and then the parking fee is waived, but does not explicitly state storing the history of purchases made in the storage while parked. However, Kannomata teaches this remaining limitation, storing the date and time information of purchases and when services were provided for each item in the billing amount database with the parking fees and the history of the parking lot use (Kannomata pg. 2 ¶ beginning “Further, the parking lot processing device 5 stores the user ID, the entry and exit date and time of the user, the parking time, the history of the parking lot use…”, pg. 3 ¶s beginning “Along with D, necessary information such as time of the purchase or the date and time when the service…”, pg. 4 ¶ beginning “The IDs of the stores and the price etc. need not be recorded in the billing amount database 13. The record in the billing amount database 13 may be limited to the case where the amount and frequency of use at the store are used only for the discount…”, pg. 7 ¶ beginning “In addition to the user ID read out by the user, required information such as the shopping date and time, the date and time…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the storage stores a history of purchase made by a user who has parked his/her vehicle in the parking lot in a store which is in alliance with the parking lot while the user has his/her vehicle parked in the parking lot in association with the identification information on the user as taught by Kannomata with the teachings of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, with the motivation that “allows a vehicle to enter and exit a store such as a department store or a supermarket or a parking lot such as a shopping mall where these are gathered in one area almost non-stop, and automatically sets a parking fee at that time” (Kannomata pg. 2 Background and Field of the Invention). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the storage stores a history of purchase made by a user who has parked his/her vehicle in the parking lot in a store which is in alliance with the parking lot while the user has his/her vehicle parked in the parking lot association with the identification information on the user as taught by Kannomata in the system of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Robinson (in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi in view of Kannomata, applying that the history is stored in the storage, per Kannomata above; and the servers include one or more processors to execute the instructions, per Zivkovic above) also teaches the following:
the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to determine the parking fee further based on the purchase history stored in the storage (Robinson 17 ln 20 through col 18 ln 13 details waiving a parking fee based on recognizing that a purchase was made with a credit card stored in a parking database was recently used for a purchase at an affiliate retailer).
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 7,533,809 B1 to Robinson et al. in view of US patent application publication 2017/0109942 A1 to Zivkovic et al. in view of US patent application publication 2014/0101453 A1 to Senthurpandi, as applied to claims 1 / 8 / 15, in further view of Japan patent application publication JP2002324137A to Masahito.
Claim 22:
Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: store, in a case that the processing for paying the parking fee is completed, at least the identification information, the temporary password information, and a flag associated with each other in the storage.
Robinson, as shown in col 10 ln 32-55, col 11 ln 9-43, col 12 ln 9-25 details storing the parking transaction information in the user record, and the user record includes user identification information such as the name and biometric data and the SID (i.e. identification information and temporary password information associated with each other on the user record), and payment for the parking transaction can be processed (i.e. paying the parking fee is complete) upon receiving authorization when concluding the parking transaction by providing identifying data (e.g. biometric data and/or SID) for payment at a kiosk or exit gate; but does not explicitly state storing, when processing for paying the parking fee is complete, a flag associated with the user record. However, Masahito teaches this remaining limitation, using a flag on the data record to indicate when the vehicle is paid with ‘payment completed’ (instead of ‘payment not completed’), and the data record also includes user ID and user password (Masahito pg. 8 ln 42-44, pg. 11 ln 11-16, pg. 11 ln 54 through pg. 12 ln 2, pg. 25 ln 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: store, in a case that the processing for paying the parking fee is completed, at least the identification information, the temporary password information, and a flag associated with each other in the storage as taught by Masahito with the teachings of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, with the motivation to “enable short-term parking lot rental to unspecified majority” and “promote the supply of insufficient parking lots in urban areas” (Masahito pg. 3 ln 20-23). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more processors of the server configured to execute the instructions to: store, in a case that the processing for paying the parking fee is completed, at least the identification information, the temporary password information, and a flag associated with each other in the storage as taught by Masahito in the system of Robinson in view of Zivkovic in view of Senthurpandi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 23:
Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 22 and therefore claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 22.
Claim 24:
Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 22 and therefore claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 22.
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 TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628