DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 06/26/2026.
Claims 1 – 8 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 1 – 8 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 03/26/2026 as to claims 1 – 8 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 8, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 5 – 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As respects 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 8 as amended do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong One. Remarks 5 – 6. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims as amended do not constitute a mental process. The claims as amended still recite a mental process capable of being in one’s mind. See detailed 35 USC 101 argument below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 8 as amended, even if containing a mental process, nonetheless represent a practical application. Remarks 6 – 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To wit:
Even if the Examiner were to continue to assert that some aspect of the claims could be characterized at a high level as involving evaluation of a vehicle condition and selection of a response, amended claims 1 and 8 as a whole integrate any such concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims are directed to automated valet parking in a parking lot, use recognition sensors to monitor a surrounding situation of the parking lot after a target exit space has been allocated, store the allocation in memory, and then communicate control instructions to an exit vehicle to alter its movement. This is not a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer. Rather, it is a particular technological application directed to improving operation of an automated valet parking …
Remarks 6.
There is nothing practical set forth in the claims as amended. See detailed 35 USC 101 argument below.
Applicant lastly argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 8 as amended also amount to significantly more than any mental idea. Remarks 7 – 9. There is nothing set forth in the claims as amended that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea detailed within. See detailed 35 USC 101 argument below.
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.
Independent claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Independent claims 1 and 8:
(Currently Amended) An automated valet parking management system for managing automated valet parking in a parking lot, the automated valet parking management system comprising:
a memory device;
a communication device;
one or more recognition sensors configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the parking lot; and
processing circuitry configured to execute:
an allocation process of allocating in the memory device a first target exit space to an exit vehicle from the parking lot;
a monitoring process of using the one or more recognition sensors to detect entry or approach of an external vehicle to the first target exit space from outside the parking lot after the first target exit space is allocated to the exit vehicle; and
a countermeasure process of instructing, via the communication device, the exit vehicle to (i) move to allocating a second target exit space to the exit vehicle,
or decelerating or [stop] the exit vehicle that is exiting to the first target exit space ii) decelerate or stop, when the entry or the approach is detected by the monitoring process.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a system (a machine containing sensors, processors) claim 1 and a method (process), claim 8. Thus, these claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of:
detect entry or approach of an external vehicle to the first target exit space from outside the parking lot after the first target exit space is allocated to the exit vehicle; and instructing, the exit vehicle to (i) move to allocating a second target exit space to the exit vehicle, or decelerating or [stop] the exit vehicle when the entry or the approach is detected. This limitation, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed using automated valet parking management system, recognition sensors, and processing circuitry configured to execute [them]. That is, other than reciting an automated valet parking management system, recognition sensors, and processing circuitry configured to execute [them], nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person driving a vehicle thru a parking lot post allocation whilst looking for those allocated space(s) within which to stage a pick up for the vehicle, or slowing/stopping the vehicle when there’s an entry. The mere nominal recitations of an automated valet parking management system, recognition sensors, and processing circuitry configured to execute [them], do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims 1 and 8 recite additional elements or steps of using an automated valet parking management system, recognition sensors, processing circuitry configured to execute [them], a memory device; a communication device and an allocation process of allocating in the memory device a first target exit space to an exit vehicle from the parking lot and a monitoring process These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means for parking / allocating the vehicle / spaces at a parking lot) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations merely describe generally “applying” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer controller, as noted above. The automated valet parking management system, recognition sensors, and processing circuitry configured to execute [them], and all other hardware added by amendment as above are still recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the several allocating and monitoring steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic devices, processors, memories, and/or generic computer-readable media, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the several determining / in response to determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the automated valet parking management system, recognition sensors, and processing circuitry configured to execute [them],are anything other than a conventional, generic, computer and/or computer controlled components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined several elements / steps of determining and in response to determining noise levels (in order to reduce the same in a vehicle cabin) amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, independent claims 1 and 8 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 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.
Dependent claims 2 – 7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the above rejection of independent claims 1 and 8.
Given the above analyses, all claims 1 – 8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to be in independent claim form. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Publicover (US20200242924A1) – A traffic and parking management system is in signal communication with vehicles to direct them to park in specific locations that are under the systems authority. The system tracks and determines the availability of parking spaces via a digital camera network, and then allocates spaces based on need, predicted availability, and predicted arrival time at a preferred destination or vicinity. The vehicles are directed to the space so allocated, and in the case of a pay for parking system, billed by the system. The traffic and parking management system operates in conjunction with a smart traffic control device which transmits information to approaching vehicles regarding its current and future state enabling vehicles to control their speed to avoid arriving at the traffic control device until it permits the passage of traffic, thus avoiding stopping, idling and reaccelerating when reaching the traffic control device.
Nordbrunch (US20170025004A1) A method for determining a pickup position from multiple pickup positions for a vehicle incorporated by a parking facility, at which the vehicle is to be picked up after an automatic parking operation, including ascertaining a traffic situation inside and/or outside the parking facility, and determining the pickup position from the multiple pickup positions, based on the ascertained traffic situation, so that the automatic parking operation may end at the designated pickup position. A corresponding device, a corresponding parking facility, and a corresponding computer program are also described.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights