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 RCE filed on 12/19/2025.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Interpretation
The present amendments to Claim 11, in relevant part, are in line with those proposed for the Interview of 12/09/2025. As noted in Examiner’s Summary of said Interview, while the previous 112(f) interpretations were not rejections and did not preclude patentability, Examiner agrees that these amendments to Claim 11 obviate these interpretations. As such, these interpretations are withdrawn.
Regarding the pending interpretations on the topic of contingent limitations of a method claim, the present arguments appear to be copied verbatim from those provided for the Interview of 12/09/2025. As explained in said Interview and noted in Examiner’s Summary thereof, Ex Parte Gopalan remains non-precedential on the present application (ie: this decision is not part of the family of the present application, nor has it been designated as precedential generally by the Office). Examiner is required to examine applications based on the standards set forth in the MPEP and precedential legal sources (ie: statutory law and caselaw). As such, Ex Parte Gopalan remains irrelevant to this examination and, barring a change in policy or law to make this otherwise, will not be discussed further now or in the future. Examiner maintains the correctness of the contingency-based claim interpretations in light of the MPEP and precedential sources of law, and maintains them presently.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
The vast majority of the presently presented arguments regarding 101 subject matter eligibility are identical to those presented in the Interview of 12/09/2025, and are unpersuasive for the same reasons explained therein. See Examiner’s Summary of the Interview of 12/09/2025 for more information.
Regarding said Interview, the present Remarks additionally contain the following language: “The foregoing remarks and above-discussed claim amendments were proposed to the Examiner in connection with the above-discussed Examiner interview. The Examiner indicated that further consideration of such remarks would need to be conducted before he could reach any conclusion of patent eligibility. … Nevertheless, as the Examiner appeared reluctant to conclude during the interview that the foregoing remarks and above-discussed claim amendments, as proposed to the Examiner during the interview, are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant has opted to…” Examiner disagrees with this summary of said Interview, wherein while Examiner noted that further consideration would be required regarding the presented 103 arguments, Examiner was clear that the amendments and arguments presented regarding 101 subject matter eligibility were not persuasive. Examiner did not “appear reluctant” to conclude that such amendments and arguments overcame the standards of 101; rather, Examiner conclusively opined that they did not. Now, as then, these reiterated arguments merely set forth improvements to abstract concepts cloaked in technological language (e.g., “improvements to logical structures and processes;” “reducing processing load, power consumption, and information throughput”) rather than an actual improvement to any recited technological element or aspect of the present invention.
Applicant somewhat supplements these previous arguments in relation to further amendments not present in the claims as presented in the Interview of 12/09/2025, yet Applicant presents no cogent analysis or theory as to why such features would render the independent claims subject matter eligible. In relation thereto, Examiner also notes his disagreement with the following statement: “For example, during the interview, the Examiner indicated that in order to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claims would need to be amended to incorporate further structural features including any significant features associated with either the user's vehicle or the user terminal and the determined parking location information and/or the store terminal carried by the clerk of the store.” Examiner has no memory of making this indication, does not necessarily agree with this indication, and further notes that this purported indication stands in opposition to the extensive discussion of Enfish, Ex Parte Desjardins, and software-based improvements to technology discussed in relation thereto.
While Examiner disagrees that these additionally presented features relate to the discussion of 101 standards which occurred in said Interview, and despite Applicant’s lack of any substantive analysis or discussion of these additionally-cited features (e.g., analysis under Steps 2A, Prongs One and Two, or 2B), Examiner notes the following. Regarding both the newly claimed database and the camera which captures image information, while both of these elements are non-abstract additional elements, both represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (e.g., use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) in the context of the claims as a whole. This database, similar to the user database claimed elsewhere in previous and present versions of the claims, this merely represents a computer-based embodiment of any standard business ledger, from which recorded information may be retrieved. Regarding the camera and associated functionality thereof, as this limitation is essentially a re-wording of a limitation already present in Claim 10 (see 112(b) rejections, it is particularly unclear and confusing as to why Applicant would believe this element would render the claims subject matter eligible in view of the 101 rejections of Claim 9 in every round of prosecution thus far. This limitation is analyzed similarly as presently amended into the independent claims.
Regardless of the present inclusion of these features, the claims as presently drafted recite judicial exceptions (indeed, the majority of the independent claims as presently drafted constitute abstract ideas) under the Prong One analysis, thus necessitating further analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. Examiner sees no standard or consideration thereof which would render the claims as presently drafted subject matter eligible, even in view of these newly claimed database and camera features (either individually or in combination with each other and the further additional elements recited in the claims). See 101 rejections below for more information.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
While, as with other arguments above, the present 103 arguments are nearly identical to those presented for the Interview of 12/09/2025, Applicant in part adds the following: “The foregoing remarks and above-discussed claim amendments were proposed to the Examiner in connection with the above-discussed Examiner interview. The Examiner expressed agreement that these rejections would be overcome if these associated remarks and claim amendments, as proposed during the interview, are included in the next response.” To maintain clarity of the record, Examiner must note that this language is misleading. In said Interview, Examiner indicated that the then-proposed amendments (which the present amendments largely mirror) would overcome the art cited in the previous 103 rejections, but that further search and consideration would be required to determine if they would overcome the standard of 103 obviousness overall. See the Summary for the Interview of 12/09/2025 for more information.
Despite this inaccuracy, the further search and consideration performed in response to the present amendments do find that the claims as presently drafted represent novel and non-obvious subject matter (with this finding regarding Claims 1-8 being preliminary in nature). See below for more information.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 contains the following limitation: “determining, when a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number, location information about…” This constitutes a contingent limitation of a method claim, and as such is not considered limiting. See MPEP 2111.04 for more information on this standard. This limitation remains contingent for all of dependent Claims 2-10 as well, even for Claim 2, as the claim may still be practiced without triggering the conditions for either the above-quoted limitation of Claim 1 or the further limitation of Claim 2 (ie: neither step need occur when the difference is equal to the given number). For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be treated as if it were limiting.
Claim 4 includes the following limitations: “wherein, in the outputting, confirmation information for confirming a visit or non-visit to the store is output when the difference is larger than the given number” 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 on receipt of information indicating the visit to the store.” These limitations may reasonably be interpreted in a number of ways, particularly in that the “receipt of information indicating the visit to the store” might be interpreted as (a) necessarily occurring in response to the former quoted limitation, or (b) a condition which may or may not be triggered, wherein the latter quoted limitation only occurs when this condition is met. If given the latter interpretation, this language causes multiple issues. Firstly, if given the latter limitation, the second above-quoted limitation would be a contingent limitation of a method claim, and as such would not be considered limiting. Secondly, the second limitation would conflict with the limitation “outputting the parking location information” of Claim 1 (upon which Claim 4 depends), violating the standards of 112(d) and requiring a corresponding rejection. Specifically, the outputting in the above-quoted limitation of Claim 1 is not optional, and must occur. Modifying this limitation by the language of Claim 4 (when given the latter interpretation) makes this outputting step optional based on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a condition (ie: the receipt of information indicating the visit to the store), which improperly broadens Claim 1 rather than narrowing it, and fails to meet the requirement of “incorporat[ing] by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers” (35 USC 112(d)). To avoid these issues, these limitations of Claim 4 are given the former interpretation.
Claim 5 contains the following limitations: “wherein, in the outputting, confirmation information for confirming a visit or non-visit to the store is output when the difference is larger than the given number” and “change confirmation information for confirming a request or non-request for a change of the planned receipt time is output on receipt of information indicating the non-visit to the store.” The former limitation makes clear that the confirmation information may relate to either “a visit or non-visit to the store.” The latter limitation contains a condition such that the limitation only occurs “on receipt of information indicating the non-visit to the store,” which explicitly may or may not occur as per the former limitation. As such, the latter limitation is a contingent limitation of a method claim, and as such is not considered limiting. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be treated as if it were limiting.
Claim 6 contains the following limitation: “wherein, in the outputting, receivable information indicating that the commodity is receivable is output on receipt of change request information indicating the request for the change of the planned receipt time.” As the request for the change of the planned receipt time is a contingent limitation of a method claim (see above Interpretation Note regarding Claim 5, upon which Claim 6 depends), this limitation of Claim 6 is likewise a contingent limitation of a method claim, and as such is not considered limiting. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be treated as if it were limiting.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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 7-8 and 10-11 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.
Claims 7 and 10 contain limitations which attempt to relate back to functionality of Claim 1 via the language “in the acquiring.” This is presently rendered indefinite as Claim 1 is now amended to recite three separate “acquiring…” limitations, and it is not clear as drafted which of these three “acquiring…” limitations are intended to be indicated by “in the acquiring…” For the purposes of this examination, these instances of “in the acquiring” will be interpreted as “in the acquiring of entry information.” Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependence upon Claim 7.
Claim 10 contains the following limitation: “in the acquiring, a vehicle image is acquired by photographing a vehicle in the entry into the administrative region by the camera.” Beyond the indefiniteness stemming from “in the acquiring” addressed above, this limitation is further indefinite in that it is unclear as drafted whether this recited step as a whole is intended to relate back to the limitation “acquiring image information including a vehicle in an entry into an administrative region of a store from a camera arranged in the administrative region of the store” of Claim 1 (upon which Claim 10 depends) or to indicate a separate step. Relatedly, it is also unclear as drafted whether particular terms contained in this limitation (ie: “a camera,” “a vehicle image”) are intended to relate back to terms of the same limitation of Claim 1 (e.g., “a camera,” “image information”) or to indicate separate respective instances of the recited terms. In view of the original disclosure, which does not appear to disclose either multiple cameras or multiple photographing steps, this limitation will be interpreted as a superfluous reiteration of the above-quoted limitation of Claim 1 which recites no further details not already present in said limitation of Claim 1.
Claim 11 contains two instances of “a memory,” and it is unclear as drafted whether the second instance of “a memory” is intended to relate back to the first instance of “a memory” or to recite a separate memory. For the purposes of this examination, the latter instance of “a memory” will be interpreted as “the memory.”
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, when a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number, 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; and outputting the parking location information, wherein the parking location information is displayed to the user and a clerk of the store, 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, when a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number, 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; and outputting the parking location information, wherein the parking location information is displayed to the user and a clerk of the store, 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 limitation of determining, when a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number, 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, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 database, a memory, a user terminal, and a store terminal. In the context of the claims as a whole, these amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 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 and 10, 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, in the determining, 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 (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 when 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 on receipt of 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 when 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 on receipt of 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 on receipt of 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, 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.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the memory holds a user database associating the user ID and a vehicle number with each other (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); in the acquiring, a vehicle image is acquired by photographing a vehicle in the entry into the administrative region by the camera (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); and the vehicle number is specified from the vehicle image, and the entry information is determined to be acquired when the user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified from the user database (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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 contain novel and non-obvious subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of Claims 1, 11, and 12. In particular, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following limitations within the context of the claims as a whole:
by a computer,
acquiring image information including a vehicle in an entry into an administrative region of a store from a camera arranged in the administrative region of the 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 from a database;
determining, when a difference between the entry time and the planned receipt time is larger than a given number, 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; and
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10 contain novel and non-obvious subject matter due to their dependence upon Claim 1.
Applicant should note that, while this finding of novel/non-obvious subject matter holds for Claims 11-12 as presently drafted, the finding of novel/non-obvious subject matter for Claim 1 is merely a preliminary finding as per the lack of patentable weight afforded to certain elements thereof (see Interpretation Notes above). Should these elements be drafted such that they are no longer contingent limitations of a method claim, and thus given patentable weight, Claim 1 (and Claims 2-8 and 10 by dependency) will likewise represent novel/non-obvious subject matter.
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
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