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 action is in reply to the amendment filed on 5/06/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11-12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant asserts that Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 have each been amended to avoid the previous interpretations of various limitations thereof as contingent limitations of method claims. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Applicant believes that their previously-filed remarks with regard to claim interpretations set forth in the Office Action continue to Apply,” Examiner states for the record that he continues to disagree with these referenced previously-filed remarks for the same reasons set forth in several previous Interview summaries and Office Actions.
Applicant is successful in doing so in relation to Claims 1-2; however, the presently amended draftings of Claims 1 and 2 regarding this issue causes conflict between them as well as the content of the original disclosure. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below for more information.
Applicant is unsuccessful in doing so in relation to Claims 4-5. Specifically, while some previous issues are solved by the present amendments to Claims 4-5, others are created. See the Claim Interpretation section below for more information.
The amendments to Claims 5 and 6 render the previous contingency issue thereof unclear. Specifically, the previously identified functionality of Claim 6 may or may not constitute a contingent limitation of a method claim based on which outputting the language “in the outputting” of Claim 6 references (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 6 below). Based on the interpretation given to Claim 6 in the 112(b) rejection below, made in view of what appears the most logical assumption of intent, Claim 6 is interpreted as reciting a contingent limitation of a method claim.
As, overall, Applicant’s several previous attempts at amending around this issue have been unsuccessful, Examiner provides the following suggestion: should Applicant amend the “determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a parking location…” of Claim 1 to read “determining, when the difference is larger than the given number, location information about a parking location…” or similar, as well as roll up into Claim 1 and modify the limitation “determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a predetermined…” of Claim 2 to “determining, when the difference is equal to or smaller than the given number, location information about a predetermined…” or similar (Claim 2 may then be cancelled), the issues of contingency in Claim 2 may be avoided. Specifically, if amended as suggested above, these limitations in Claim 1 would cover conditions representing the entire spectrum of possible outcomes of the preceding limitation “determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number” (ie: differing actions are recited as occurring when the difference is larger than, or equal to or smaller than the given number); as one of these two conditions must occur, one of these actions would then be required to be taken. This approach would have the additional benefit of obviating the pending 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of Claim 2. This effect would additionally render the relevant limitations of Claims 4-5 no longer contingent as well, as the underlying condition of “when the difference is larger than the given number” is no longer contingent. Further still, this would have the cascading effect of rendering the relevant limitation of Claim 6 no longer contingent as well, as the limitation of Claim 5 upon which it is based is no longer contingent.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous 112(b) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Before addressing the substance of the presently presented 101-based arguments, Examiner addresses references to previous arguments found therein. Insofar as “Applicant continues to traverse these rejections for similar reasons as set forth at pages 12-28 of the response filed on August 7, 2025 and at pages 11-19 of the response filed on December 19, 2025,” Examiner continues to find these reasons unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in the Final Rejection of 9/19/2025 and the Non-Final Rejection of 2/06/2026. To the extent Applicant argues that the present Remarks regarding 101 “bolster the remarks in support of patent eligibility at pages 11-19 of the response filed on December 19, 2025 in this application,” Examiner disagrees, as the 101-based arguments of the presently presented Remarks do not address any of the explanations refuting those 101 arguments set forth in the previous Remarks of December 19, 2025 (the referenced pages 11-19 thereof covering the entire 101-based section therein) in the Non-Final Rejection of 2/06/2026. Regarding the particularly referenced “discussion of the USPTO Memorandum dated December 5, 2025 entitled ‘Advance notice of changes to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins’” found in previous Remarks, Examiner notes that this “discussion” misapprehended the content of said Memorandum as explained in both the agenda presented in relation to the Interview of 12/09/2025 and the same discussion carried forward in the Remarks of 12/09/2025. This bare reference in these Remarks to Applicant’s previous misapprehensions of this Memorandum does not evidence subject matter eligibility for the reasons previously explained (see, e.g., the Summary for the Interview of 12/09/2025), nor does the actual content of said Memorandum support the presently advanced theory of eligibility. Instead, in similar manner as Applicant’s previous assertion that previous arguments of eligibility were simply “evident” based on then-presented citations to the specification, Applicant presents the entirely unexplained conclusory assertion that the present theory of eligibility is “clearly” analogous to eligible subject matter of Ex Parte Desjardins and the content of said Memorandum. Examiner disagrees, and again notes generally that such conclusory and unexplained analogies, absent any cogent analysis or attempt at fact-to-fact and reasoning-to-reasoning comparisons, fall well short of either proper or persuasive arguments.
Applicant argues for eligibility under 101 by asserting of an improvement to a technology under Step 2A, Prong Two, particularly that “the character recognition process is not uniformly applied to all the vehicles but instead applied to only a vehicle determined, by a classifier, to be in the direction of an administrative region,” “result[ing] in avoiding execution of the character recognition process to a leaving vehicle and a non-target vehicle” and thereby purportedly “achiev[ing] a functional and technological improvement in a computer,” citing to Paragraph 0051 as support. Examiner disagrees.
As with previous arguments, this argument cloaks a broader, abstract improvement in terms of computer implementation and automation. Regarding improvements to a technology, MPEP 2106.05(a) explains that such an improvement is “a technological solution to a technological problem,” and further that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Here, what Applicant asserts as an improvement to a technology is essentially the mere computer automation of a customary function of a security guard in a parking lot: reviewing vehicles entering such a parking lot (either directly or by way of captured camera images), recording license plates thereof, and comparing such license plates to pre-scheduled appointment information. It is well-settled that mere automation of a manual process is insufficient to show such an improvement (see Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The seemingly implied reduction in computing resources achieved by only applying character recognition techniques to the license plates of vehicles found to be driving in the direction of the administrative region (ie: entering the parking lot) equates directly to a reduction in work of such a security guard performing this customary process (ie: only recording and comparing license plate information for vehicles entering a parking lot rather than leaving one), making it clear that this is not a technological improvement but rather an abstract, business-related improvement which happens to be claimed as being performed by way of computer effectuation in the present claims.
Further, it is clear from the content of the original disclosure, especially Applicant’s cited Paragraph 0051 thereof, that this functionality in the present invention does not constitute an improvement to a technology, but rather merely the application of pre-existing technologies to a particular commercial context. The content of Paragraph 0051, which is the only description of this direction-based functionality in the entire original disclosure, provides merely an entirely results-based and black box-type statement that it is performed by way of image recognition techniques, and includes no technical explanation as to how these image recognition techniques function (a far cry from the invention of Ex Parte Desjardins, which provided the technical explanation of how the particular machine learning model thereof functioned to provide an improvement over previous machine learning model as per the evidentiary standards for such an improvement as laid out in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Image recognition techniques relevant to this function were not invented by Applicant in this invention, but rather long pre-date this application’s effective filing date. Paragraph 0051 even appears to acknowledge/admit this in stating that “[a]doptable examples of the image recognition processing include processing using a classifier to detect a vehicle and an advancing direction of the vehicle from the image information.” This is further borne out by the art previously cited against the present application, with the asserted OCR techniques disclosed in at least Mukaiyama, Fjeldheim, and Docrou, and the vehicle direction detection image processing techniques disclosed in at least Docrou. Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably find that the argued functionality constitutes an improvement to a technology as of Applicant’s effective filing date.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4-5 include the following limitations: “wherein, in the outputting, confirmation information for confirming a visit or non-visit to the store is output based on whether the difference is larger than the given number.” This constitutes a contingent limitation of a method claim, specifically based on the contingency that the outputting is “based on whether the difference is larger than the given number.” While this contingency does not specify whether the claimed output of confirmation information occurs when the difference is larger than the given number or when the difference is equal to or shorter than the given number (ie: merely requiring that this occurs “based on whether the difference is larger than the given number” does not specify which side of this “whether” triggers this outputting), it is clear that this step need not occur in all circumstances. Further, as the outputting of “confirmation information for confirming a visit or non-visit to the store” is contingent in this first limitation of Claims 4-5, the subsequent limitations of Claims 4-5 which are respectively based on information indicating the visit to the store (Claim 4) or the non-visit to the store (Claim 5) are likewise contingent as they are both based on the contingent occurrence of said outputting of the first limitation in these claims.
Claim 6 includes the following limitation: “wherein, in the outputting, receivable information indicating that the commodity is receivable is output based on change request information indicating the request for the change of the planned receipt time.” Based on the interpretation of what “in the outputting” refers to in the 112(b) rejections below, this limitation constitutes a contingent limitation of a method claim as it is based upon the occurrence of a contingent limitation of Claim 5 (upon which Claim 6 depends).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a classifier” of Claims 1, 11, and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, this term is interpreted in light of Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0045-0047, 0051, and 0072 and Fig. 1 as filed.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 contains the following limitations: “wherein, the determining includes: determining whether the difference is smaller than the given number” and “wherein, the determining includes: … determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a predetermined parking location as the parking location information on the basis of the parking information.” Due to the dependence of Claim 2 upon Claim 1 as presently drafted, these limitations constitute new matter when considered in conjunction with the following limitations of Claim 1: “determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number” and “determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a parking location which is a distance…” As per the language “from the determining about the difference” in both of the second above-quoted limitations of Claims 1 and 2, Claim 2 requires that two different pieces of location information simultaneously be determined “as the parking location information.” For clarity, unlike in previous draftings of Claims 1-2 (wherein the above-quoted “determining…location information…” limitation of Claim 1 only occurred when the difference was larger than the given number, and conversely the “determining…location information…” limitation of Claim 2 only occurred when the difference was smaller than the given number, both limitations as presently amended are now required to always occur, as the newly drafted condition for both (ie: “the determining about the difference”) must always occur. Setting aside that the simultaneous performance of these assignment actions are not possible (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 2), the original disclosure does not support the simultaneous performance of these distinct “determining…location information…” steps or the simultaneous assignment of two different pieces of location information “as the parking location information” within a single method as claimed. Rather, what is disclosed in the original disclosure is the occurrence of one of these functions in the alternative within a single method, with one such action occurring only if the difference is larger than the given number and the other such action occurring only if the difference is equal to or smaller than the given number (see, e.g., Paragraph 0087 and Fig. 5). The original disclosure contains no exemplary embodiment where both of these claimed actions occur in a single method, nor would it be possible to do so. As such, Claim 2 as presently amended recites new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 contains the following limitations: “wherein, the determining includes: determining whether the difference is smaller than the given number” and “wherein, the determining includes: … determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a predetermined parking location as the parking location information on the basis of the parking information.” These limitations are indefinite in a number of ways, in some instances particularly as they relate to the following limitations of Claim 1: “determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number” and “determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a parking location which is a distance…” Firstly, the language “in the determining” found in the root to which both of the above-cited limitations of Claim 2 belong is indefinite, as Claim 1 as presently amended contains three distinct “determining…” limitations and it is unclear as drafted to which of these three this root relates back. Secondly, it is unclear as drafted to what “from the determining about the difference” in the second above-quoted limitation of Claim 2 is intended to relate back, as this language could equally apply to “determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number” of Claim 1 or “determining whether the difference is smaller than the given number” of Claim 2. Thirdly and relatedly, even considering this based on the original disclosure and previous claim draftings (wherein the only previous “determining…” of Claim 1 relates to the limitation presently drafted as “determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number”), the second above-quoted limitation of Claim 2 appears to be simultaneously claimed as part of this determining step of Claim 1 (ie: “wherein, the determining includes”) and based on a result thereof (ie: “from the determining about the difference”), which is paradoxical and nonsensical. Fourthly, Claim 2 requires that two different pieces of location information simultaneously be determined “as the parking location information (see 112(a) rejection of Claim 2 above), which is not possible and causes compounding issues of indefiniteness regarding the term “the parking location information” in the limitation “outputting the parking location information, wherein the parking location information is displayed on a display of a user terminal carried by the user and a display of a store terminal carried by a clerk of the store” of Claim 1 (incorporated by dependency into Claim 2). For the purposes of this examination, the above-quoted limitations of Claim 2 will be interpreted collectively as “wherein, in the determining of whether the difference is larger than the given number, when the difference is smaller than the given number, location information about a predetermined parking location is determined as the parking location information on the basis of the parking information.
Claim 6 contains the following limitation: “wherein, in the outputting, receivable information indicating that the commodity is receivable is output based on change request information indicating the request for the change of the planned receipt time.” It is unclear as drafted to which preceding output the language “in the outputting” in this limitation relates back. Specifically, Claim 5 (upon which Claim 6 depends) recites (1) the outputting of confirmation information and (2) the outputting of change confirmation information. Claim 1 (upon which Claim 5 depends, and thus Claim 6 does as well) recites (3) the outputting of the parking location information. For the purposes of this examination, given the reference to “the change of the planned receipt time,” “in the outputting” is interpreted as referring back to output (2) above.
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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12, the limitations of acquiring image information including a vehicle in an entry into an administrative region of a store; acquiring, based on the image information, entry information indicating an entry of a user into the administrative region of the store and including a user ID and an entry time when the user entered; acquiring a planned receipt time associated with the user ID for receiving a commodity; determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number; determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a parking location which is a distance equal to or shorter than a predetermined distance away from a selling section corresponding to purchase history information concerning past purchase by the user including at least a purchase date and time and a purchased commodity as parking location information on the basis of parking information which is held in a memory and includes location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region; outputting the parking location information, wherein the parking location information is displayed to the user and a clerk of the store; the acquiring of the entry information includes: acquiring, based on the image information, a vehicle label indicating the vehicle included in the image information and an advancing label of the vehicle; specifying, based on the acquiring of the vehicle label and indicating of a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region by the vehicle advancing direction label, a vehicle number from the image information; and determining that the entry information is acquired, based on specifying of a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number from the database, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of acquiring image information including a vehicle in an entry into an administrative region of a store; acquiring, based on the image information, entry information indicating an entry of a user into the administrative region of the store and including a user ID and an entry time when the user entered; acquiring a planned receipt time associated with the user ID for receiving a commodity; determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number; determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a parking location which is a distance equal to or shorter than a predetermined distance away from a selling section corresponding to purchase history information concerning past purchase by the user including at least a purchase date and time and a purchased commodity as parking location information on the basis of parking information which is held in a memory and includes location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region; outputting the parking location information, wherein the parking location information is displayed to the user and a clerk of the store; the acquiring of the entry information includes: acquiring, based on the image information, a vehicle label indicating the vehicle included in the image information and an advancing label of the vehicle; specifying, based on the acquiring of the vehicle label and indicating of a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region by the vehicle advancing direction label, a vehicle number from the image information; and determining that the entry information is acquired, based on specifying of a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number from the database, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of determining whether a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number; and determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a parking location which is a distance equal to or shorter than a predetermined distance away from a selling section corresponding to purchase history information concerning past purchase by the user including at least a purchase date and time and a purchased commodity as parking location information on the basis of parking information which is held in a memory and includes location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, an information processing device comprising a memory configured to store a program and a processor configured to execute the program and control the information processing device, a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program executable by a computer, a camera arranged in the administrative region of the store, a database, a memory, a user terminal, a store terminal, inputting the image information into a classifier, and applying character recognition processing to the image information. A computer, an information processing device comprising a memory configured to store a program and a processor configured to execute the program and control the information processing device, a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program executable by a computer, a database, a memory, a user terminal, a store terminal, inputting the image information into a classifier, and applying character recognition processing to the image information, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A camera arranged in the administrative region of the store, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein, the determining includes: determining whether the difference is smaller than the given number (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and determining, from the determining about the difference, location information about a predetermined parking location is determined as the parking location information on the basis of the parking information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses wherein the parking location information which is determined when the difference is larger than the given number indicates a parking location which is a distance equal to or shorter than the predetermined distance away from a doorway of the store (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses wherein, in the outputting, confirmation information for confirming a visit or non-visit to the store is output based on whether the difference is larger than the given number (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), and the location information about the parking location which is the distance equal to or shorter than the predetermined distance away from the store is output as the parking location information based on information indicating the visit to the store (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein, in the outputting, confirmation information for confirming a visit or non-visit to the store is output based on whether the difference is larger than the given number (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), and change confirmation information for confirming a request or non-request for a change of the planned receipt time is output based on information indicating the non-visit to the store (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses wherein, in the outputting, receivable information indicating that the commodity is receivable is output based on change request information indicating the request for the change of the planned receipt time (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein, in the acquiring of the entry information, the purchase history information is acquired (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); in the determining, the selling section which the user is highly likely to visit in the store is estimated on the basis of the purchase history information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and location information about a parking location which is a distance equal to or shorter than the predetermined distance away from the identified selling section is determined as the parking location information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses wherein the selling section is at an arrangement location of the commodity in the store or a location of another store which is in the administrative region (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 7), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
US 10482421 – “System for Expediting Delivery of Items,” Docrou et al, disclosing systems for effectuating the parking and pickup of ordered items available at a facility
PGPub 20250019174, claiming priority to NO 20211496 – “Method for Delivering Goods to a Customer Utilizing Optical Character Recognition,” Fjeldheim, disclosing systems for effectuating the parking and pickup of ordered items available at a facility
Zhang et al, Reservation Enhanced Autonomous Valet Parking Concerning Practicality Issues, IEEE Systems Journal (Volume: 16, Issue: 1, pgs. 351-361), disclosing techniques for management of parking based on a plurality of considerations including pickup scheduling
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights