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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 27th of August 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 09/09/2024 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…communicate with one or more computing devices that store parking availability at one or more CPLs to identify at least one available parking spot at the one or more CPLs; select one of the one or more CPLs based upon a location relative to the vehicle and the at least one available parking spot; receive, from the one or more computing devices, an access code to access the selected CPL; and…communication of the access code to an access terminal of the selected CPL to automatically provide access to the vehicle to the selected CPL.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely parking reservation. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g. processors, vehicle body, memory, computing devices). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g. processors, vehicle body, memory, computing devices) to receive/transmit/storing data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g. processors, vehicle body, memory, computing devices) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. processors, vehicle body, memory, computing devices) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving/storing of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 8 and 15.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 9, and 16, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added “determine, based upon weather condition data received for a region that includes the vehicle, that the region will experience inclement weather within a predetermined period of time.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components/processes (e.g. machine learning model) discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 3, 10, and 17, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added “in response to determining that the region will experience inclement weather, communicate with the one or more computing devices.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components/processes discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 11, and 18, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. These claims further added “…to transmit, to the one or more computing devices, a request to reserve one of the at least one available parking spot at the selected CPL.” The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere transmitting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claims 5, 12, and 19, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. These claims further added “…in response to transmitting the request, receive the access code from the one or more computing devices.” The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere receiving data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claims 6, 13, and 20, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. These claims further added “…transmit, to the one or more computing devices, a location identifier request for the one or more CPLs; and receive, from the one or more computing devices, a location identifier of the one or more CPLs and a communication address provided by the one or more computing devices.” The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere receiving/transmitting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claims 7 and 14, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. These claims further added “…transmit a registration request to an insurance computing device, the registration request including an insurance policy identifier associated with the vehicle, wherein the insurance computing device is configured to generate a usage profile for a policyholder of the vehicle; and receive, from the insurance computing device, a notification that an insurance-related benefit is applied to an insurance policy.” The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere receiving/transmitting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vishnuvajhala (US 2014/0350855 A1) in view of Petite et al. (hereinafter "Petite"); (US 8,410,931 B2).
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15:
Vishnuvajhala as shown discloses the following limitations:
communicate with one or more computing devices that store parking availability at one or more CPLs to identify at least one available parking spot at the one or more CPLs; select one of the one or more CPLs based upon a location relative to the vehicle and the at least one available parking spot; (See at least Paragraph 0025, “…the user an option to select from a plurality of available parking spaces...", paragraph 0059-0060, “…a query regarding parking availability at parking facility…”)
However, Vishnuvajhala specifically does not mention the following limitation. But Petite discloses the following limitations:
receive, from the one or more computing devices, an access code to access the selected CPL; and cause, by the processor, communication of the access code to an access terminal of the selected CPL to automatically provide access to the vehicle to the selected CPL. (See at least Columns 14, Lines 1-25, “…the customer may enter the automated parking facility…by depressing button on her personal portable transmitter…receive and forwards the customer’s transmitted identification code to server...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the parking reserving system of Vishnuvajhala the ability to collect parking access code and open the gate as taught by Petite since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 4, 11, and 18:
Furthermore, Vishnuvajhala as shown discloses the following limitations:
to transmit, to the one or more computing devices, a request to reserve one of the at least one available parking spot at the selected CPL. (See at least Paragraph 0007, “…option to reserve at least one of the one or more parking spaces...")
As per Claims 5, 12, and 19:
Furthermore, Petite as shown discloses the following limitations:
in response to transmitting the request, receive the access code from the one or more computing devices. (See at least Columns 14, Lines 1-25, “…the customer may enter the automated parking facility…by depressing button on her personal portable transmitter…receive and forwards the customer’s transmitted identification code to server...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the parking reserving system of Vishnuvajhala the ability to collect parking access code and open the gate as taught by Petite since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 6, 13, and 20:
Furthermore, Vishnuvajhala as shown discloses the following limitations:
transmit, to the one or more computing devices, a location identifier request for the one or more CPLs; and receive, from the one or more computing devices, a location identifier of the one or more CPLs and a communication address provided by the one or more computing devices. (See at least Paragraph 0093, “…For example access device may acquire geographic coordinates corresponding to its location via integrated via global positioning system (GPS).")
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vishnuvajhala and Petite in further view of Sellschopp (US 2015/0123818 A1).
As per Claims 2, 9, and 16:
Combination of Vishnuvajhala and Petite discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Vishnuvajhala and Petite does not disclose the following limitation. But, Sellschopp discloses the following limitations:
determine, based upon weather condition data received for a region that includes the vehicle, that the region will experience inclement weather within a predetermined period of time. (See at least Paragraph 0051, “…Environmental factors such as the current weather may be detected from environmental detectors...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the parking reserving system of Vishnuvajhala the ability to determine the environmental factors such as weather as taught by Sellschopp since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 3, 10, and 17:
Combination of Vishnuvajhala and Petite discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Vishnuvajhala and Petite does not disclose the following limitation. But, Sellschopp discloses the following limitations:
in response to determining that the region will experience inclement weather, communicate with the one or more computing devices. (See at least Paragraph 0039, “…receiver operative to obtain information from a remote source, such as a weather service...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the parking reserving system of Vishnuvajhala the ability to receive weather related information as taught by Sellschopp since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vishnuvajhala and Petite in further view of Warden et al. (hereinafter “Warden”); (US 11,625,745 B1).
As per Claims 7 and 14:
Combination of Vishnuvajhala and Petite discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Vishnuvajhala and Petite does not disclose the following limitation. But, Warden discloses the following limitations:
transmit a registration request to an insurance computing device, the registration request including an insurance policy identifier associated with the vehicle, wherein the insurance computing device is configured to generate a usage profile for a policyholder of the vehicle; and receive, from the insurance computing device, a notification that an insurance-related benefit is applied to an insurance policy. (See at least Columns 24, Lines 16-65, “…upon registration, the VTU may send the sensor unit…real world prizes and discounts (e.g., discounts on an auto insurance premium) may be awarded to users based on accumulation of GD points…commensurate with a good driver deserving of auto insurance policy discounts...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the parking reserving system of Vishnuvajhala the ability to reward good driving habits with insurance policy discounts as taught by Warden since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
03/14/2026