DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 1/27/26.
Examiner notes that this application is a CIP of 17/830783, which was abandoned following Examiner’s affirmance at PTAB.
Examiner further notes that 17/830783 is likewise a continuation of a series of applications that are now US Patent Numbers 11270349, 12112352, 11257120, 12106327, 11055743, 11887163, 11037199, 10991007, 11468477, 10803488, and 10796340.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 12/14/18, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Examiner further notes that Applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on 9/23/25.
Examiner further notes that the Terminal Disclaimer was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Office on 9/23/25.
Claims 1-24 have all been cancelled.
Claims 25-51 are new.
Therefore, claims 25-51 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 25-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claimed invention is directed to a process (method claims 25-37) and a system (system claims 38-51). Both are statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.03. Accordingly, Step 1 = YES, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 25 and 38, in part, describe an invention comprising: (i) receiving a selection of a parking location from a remote communication device, (ii) generating and transmitting a destination control message with machine-readable coordinates to an autonomous vehicle, (iii) receiving a confirmation message from the autonomous vehicle comprising actual location coordinates, and (iv) updating the availability state of the parking location based on a comparison of actual to destination coordinates. As such, the invention is directed to a parking occupancy management scheme, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity. (Step 2A, Prong 1 = YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: transmitting a destination control message comprising machine-readable coordinates from the server to the autonomous vehicle; the autonomous vehicle navigating to and occupying the parking location using its onboard navigation system and sensor-derived position data; and subsequently transmitting a confirmation message comprising actual location coordinates from the autonomous vehicle to the server. Dependent claims 27 and 40 further describe transmitting a vacation order to the autonomous vehicle, and the autonomous vehicle transmitting an acknowledgement confirmation to the server. Dependent claims 31 and 44 further describe transmitting environmental sensor data to the server from the autonomous vehicle. Dependent claims 36 and 49 further describe a scouting vehicle transmitting parking space scanning data to the server to update the availability database. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including a “server system” for receiving and managing the parking location selections, the server system further comprising a “processor” for executing the method, a “non-transitory memory” including a “location database” of potential parking locations, and a “communications subsystem” for transmitting the destination control message; an “autonomous vehicle” for receiving the destination control message, navigating to, and occupying the parking location, the autonomous vehicle further comprising a “processor,” a “non-transitory memory,” an “onboard navigation system” using sensor-derived position data, and a “communications subsystem” for transmitting confirmation messages to the server; and a “remote communications device” for submitting a parking location selection to the server system. Dependent claims 30 and 43 further describe various sensors (cameras, microphones, LIDAR, radar, sonar, FLIR, etc.) for detecting environmental data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
• Navigating and maneuvering an autonomous vehicle. See Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 635 F. App’x 914, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding that using sensors and an onboard control system to monitor and respond to vehicle conditions is routine and conventional. Examiner further notes that the specification itself acknowledges that GPS-based autonomous vehicle navigation systems and proximity sensor suites are known in the art and does not purport to improve upon how such systems function. See also MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B = NO).
Next, the dependent claims likewise do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
• Claims 27 and 40 (vacation order / release verification) refine how a parking reservation is enforced and released (business rules), but still use generic messaging between known components to implement status changes.
• Claims 26 and 39 add that the autonomous vehicle includes an onboard navigation system that uses sensor-derived position data to navigate to and detect occupancy of the parking location, but these claims do not recite how the sensor data is processed or how navigation is technically improved; they simply state a desired result in functional terms without specifying any particular technical mechanism. Under MPEP 2106.05(f), such results-oriented, “apply it” language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
• Claims 32, 37, 45, and 50 recite that the vehicle has a transfer authorization subsystem, public wireless transceivers (e.g., cellular booster, WLAN/WPAN access point), and various categories of vehicles. These limitations simply state that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle with conventional communications capabilities, without specifying any technical improvement in how the parking coordination information is used to control the vehicle or how the communications subsystem operates.
• Claims 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 51 recite cross-referencing parking location listings to types of autonomous vehicles, maintaining a confidence metric database cross-referencing parking locations to weighted values such as distance, travel time, signal quality, energy consumption, and predicted availability, updating those values based on environmental or scouting data, limiting requests to a predetermined radius around a parking location, specifying that the server lacks occupation authority, and accepting parking location suggestions from the remote device or autonomous vehicle. These are additional business rules, data-modeling, and configuration constraints of the parking coordination scheme (how it selects and values spaces, who can add listings, how far a request may be from a space), implemented as conventional software and database table operations. They adjust the content of the abstract idea but do not change how the underlying technology functions in a technical sense.
• Claims 30, 31, 43, and 44 recite various sensors (cameras, microphones, LIDAR, radar, sonar, FLIR, etc.) for receiving environmental data and transmitting that data to the server to update a confidence metric. These limitations simply state that the vehicle is a sensor-equipped autonomous vehicle with conventional sensing capabilities, without specifying any technical improvement in how the sensor data is processed, fused, or used to improve vehicle control or computer functioning.
Therefore, claims 25-51 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 25-27, 33-36, 38-40, 46-49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sham (US 9,827,983 B2) in view of Ramanujam (US 10,023,231 B2).
Claims 25 and 38: Sham discloses a computer-implemented method and system for coordinating autonomous vehicle parking comprising:
a server system receiving a selection of a geographic parking location from a remote communication device (col. 5:25–35; FIG. 3, steps 310–316. Data center 130 receives a parking request including location information from a user device such as a smartphone or vehicle navigation system, and the user selects a specific available parking space via a graphical interface);
the server system generating a destination control message comprising machine-readable destination location coordinates of the selected parking location (col. 5:41–55; FIG. 2, step 216. Upon receiving user confirmation of the selected parking space, the data center generates guidance information including GPS coordinates of the selected parking space transmitted to the vehicle: "sending GPS coordinates that the auto-navigation of the vehicle may use to drive to a parking structure entrance"; claim 5 of Sham explicitly recites that "guidance information includes at least one of coordinates associated with the available parking space");
the server system transmitting the destination control message to an autonomous vehicle operated independently of the server system (col. 5:41–55; FIG. 2, steps 216, 218. The data center transmits the GPS coordinate guidance information to car 110, which then autonomously navigates to the selected parking space without user intervention; the vehicle operates independently of the server during navigation); and
the server system updating an availability state of the parking location based on a comparison of the actual location coordinates to the destination location coordinates (FIG. 3, steps 318, 324, 328; col. 6:30–40. Upon user confirmation, the data center changes the status of the selected parking spot to "unavailable"; the system then confirms vehicle arrival using GPS or other location calculations for the vehicle relative to the designated parking space coordinates; and upon vehicle departure, the system changes the status back to "available").
Sham further discloses the system comprising a server system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory including a location database of potential geographic parking locations (col. 5:46–65. Data center 130 includes computer servers with associated CPUs and memory, and maintains a database of available parking spaces and structures including location information, price, distance, and availability data);
an interface to receive, from a remote communications device, a parking location selection (FIG. 3, steps 310–316. Data center 130 includes a communication interface configured to receive parking requests and location selections from user devices);
a communications subsystem transmitting a destination control message comprising machine-readable selected parking location coordinates to an autonomous vehicle operated independent of the server system (col. 5:41–55; claim 5. Data center 130 transmits GPS coordinates of the selected parking space to the vehicle for autonomous navigation); and
wherein the server system uses the device-derived location confirmations to validate physical occupancy of the selected parking location by the autonomous vehicle (FIG. 3, steps 324, 328; col. 6:30–40. The system confirms vehicle arrival based on GPS location calculations and updates parking space status accordingly).
Sham discloses a system in which occupancy confirmation is determined server-side through GPS calculations and sensor data, but does not explicitly disclose receiving a confirmation message from the autonomous vehicle comprising machine-readable actual location coordinates nor explicitly disclose receiving device-derived location confirmations transmitted from the autonomous vehicle to the server comprising the vehicle's actual location coordinates.
Ramanujam, however, discloses receiving a confirmation message from the autonomous vehicle comprising machine-readable actual location coordinates and receiving device-derived location confirmations (col. 7:40–8:10; FIG. 6, step 640; FIG. 7, step 720; claim 1. After the autonomous vehicle parks in the available parking space, the autonomous vehicle's messaging module 255 transmits a confirmation message to the client 280. The confirmation message explicitly includes a parking location associated with the autonomous vehicle — i.e., machine-readable actual location coordinates derived from the vehicle's onboard systems confirming the vehicle's parked position. These are device-derived confirmations in that they originate from the autonomous vehicle itself, not from external server-side sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle-initiated location-bearing confirmation message of Ramanujam with the server-based parking coordination system of Sham. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve occupancy verification reliability and enable accurate coordinate-based comparison of actual versus destination location.
Claims 26 and 39: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claims 25 and 38 as set forth above. Sham further discloses in response to the destination control message, an onboard navigation system of the autonomous vehicle controlling autonomous vehicle motion towards the parking location using sensor-derived position data (FIG. 4, steps 426–428; col. 5:41–55. Sham discloses a two-mode autonomous navigation system: a first mode using GPS coordinates transmitted by the server to navigate on public roads to the parking structure entrance, and a second mode using onboard proximity sensors — cameras, LIDAR, and ultrasound — for terminal guidance into the specific parking space);
the autonomous vehicle detecting occupancy of the parking location based on the sensor-derived position data (FIG. 5; col. 6:30–40. The vehicle uses data from its GPS sensor and proximity sensors to determine it has successfully moved into the available parking space); and
wherein the receiving the confirmation message includes receiving actual location coordinates determined by the autonomous vehicle onboard navigation system (FIG. 3, step 324; col. 6:30–40. Successful completion of parking is confirmed using GPS location calculations from the vehicle's onboard navigation system, which provides the actual location coordinates included in the confirmation).
Claims 27 and 40: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claims 25 and 38 as set forth above. Ramanujam further discloses subsequent to the system server updating the availability state of the selected parking location / subsequent to the system server validating the physical occupancy of the selected parking location, the server system receiving a selected parking location vacation order from the remote communication device (FIG. 4; col. 13:45–14:10. After the autonomous vehicle parks and sends a confirmation, the mobile device 310 sends a request for the autonomous vehicle to return to the preselected or modified location — i.e., a vacation order directing the vehicle to cease occupying the parking space);
the system server transmitting a vacation control message to the autonomous vehicle (FIG. 4; col. 13:45–14:10. The autonomous vehicle receives the return instruction from the mobile device and proceeds to drive to the pickup location); and
the autonomous vehicle transmitting an acknowledgement message to the server system confirming a response to the vacancy control message and the autonomous vehicle actual location coordinates (col. 13:45–14:10; FIG. 4. The autonomous vehicle sends a notification confirming it received the return instruction and an additional notification upon arrival at the preselected location, including its actual location coordinates).
The rationale for combining Ramanujam with Sham is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 33 and 46: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claims 25 and 38 as set forth above. Sham further discloses the server system lacks occupation authority and control over the selected parking location (col. 5:46–65; col. 6:30–40. Sham's data center 130 selects and reserves spaces in public parking structures and street parking areas that it does not own or control; the system coordinates with third-party parking structures and municipal entities, but the data center has no ownership or occupancy authority over the reserved spaces themselves).
Claims 34 and 47: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claims 25 and 38 as set forth above. Ramanujam further discloses the autonomous vehicle is independent of the remote communications device control (col. 9:45–col. 10:15; claims 1 and 17. The autonomous vehicle self-selects the specific parking space and autonomously navigates to and parks in that space entirely under its own control; the mobile device initiates the parking request but does not direct, steer, or otherwise control the vehicle's movement or parking decisions during execution).
The rationale for combining Ramanujam with Sham is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 35 and 48: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claims 25 and 38 as set forth above. Sham further discloses the server system accepting parking location suggestions, for addition to a database of potential parking locations in a non-transitory memory in the server, from a source selected from the group consisting of the remote communications device and the autonomous vehicle (col. 5:57–65. Sham discloses that the data center analyzes raw data including video and sensor feeds from multiple sources — including parking structures, municipal cameras, and external sensors — to independently determine and update parking space availability in its database, thereby accepting updated parking location information from both user-side and vehicle-side sources).
Claims 36 and 49: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claims 25 and 38 as set forth above. Ramanujam further discloses the server system receiving scanning data from a scouting vehicle updating a database of available parking locations in a non-transitory memory of the server (col. 5:45–65; FIG. 3. Server 330 receives real-time parking information 332 from external sources used to identify available parking spaces and update the parking information database accessible to the autonomous vehicle, including data sourced from vehicles and sensors operating in the parking environment).
The rationale for combining Ramanujam with Sham is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 51: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses the limitations of parent claim 38 as set forth above. Sham further discloses the server system interface accepts a request for a parking location within a predetermined radius of the selected parking location (col. 5:57–65; claim 2 of Sham. The data center searches its database and returns results within a predetermined distance of the requesting user's GPS coordinates, querying available parking structures and spaces within that predetermined geographic radius).
Claims 28 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sham (US 9,827,983 B2) in view of Ramanujam (US 10,023,231 B2), and in further view of Gibbs (US 11,307,580 B2) and Dekusar (US 11,803,783 B2).
The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claims 25 and 38, but does not appear to explicitly describe a database in a server non-transitory memory cross-referencing potential parking locations to a confidence metric selected from the group consisting of parking location signal quality, autonomous vehicle energy consumption, autonomous vehicle distance to parking location, autonomous vehicle time to parking location, geographic location, and predicted parking location availability.
Gibbs, however, discloses a database in a server non-transitory memory cross-referencing potential parking locations to a confidence metric comprising autonomous vehicle distance to parking location, autonomous vehicle time to parking location, geographic location, parking location signal quality, and predicted parking location availability (col. 6:15–56; claims 1–3. Gibbs discloses a parking system server that maintains a data set of parking zones each associated with a geographic location, and for each zone determines: (1) an estimated density corresponding to predicted parking location availability using real-time parking usage data; (2) a physical distance from the autonomous vehicle’s present location to each zone corresponding to autonomous vehicle distance to parking location; and (3) a temporal distance, i.e., estimated travel time, corresponding to autonomous vehicle time to parking location. Claim 2 of Gibbs further discloses identifying parking zones proximate to a transceiver in wireless communication with the server, and claim 3 discloses estimating the distance from that transceiver to each parking zone — directly corresponding to parking location signal quality as a selection factor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the features of Gibbs with those of Sham/Ramanujam. One would have been motivated to do this in order to enhance the server’s parking location selection capability by adding quantitative multi-factor ranking metrics — including estimated density, travel distance, travel time, and wireless proximity — to Sham/Ramanujam’s existing location database, thereby reducing failed arrivals at occupied zones and minimizing vehicle travel time.
Dekusar, however, further discloses autonomous vehicle energy consumption as a confidence metric factor (col. 7:25–8:6. Dekusar discloses that the dynamic parking assignment program accounts for EV charger availability as a parking preference and identifies real-time information including factors relevant to electric vehicle energy requirements when assigning parking spots, teaching that energy consumption is a relevant parking location selection metric for autonomous vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the features of Dekusar with those of Sham/Ramanujam/Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this in order to add energy consumption as a ranking factor to the confidence metric database, addressing a critical operational concern for electric autonomous vehicles that is not covered by the Sham/Ramanujam/Gibbs combination alone, and providing a more complete multi-factor selection metric for the growing class of electric autonomous vehicles.
Claims 29 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sham (US 9,827,983 B2) in view of Ramanujam (US 10,023,231 B2), and in further view of Dekusar (US 11,803,783 B2).
The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claims 25 and 38, but does not appear to explicitly describe the server system location database cross-references parking locations to types of autonomous vehicles.
Dekusar, however, discloses the server system location database cross-references parking locations to types of autonomous vehicles (col. 6:44–7:24. Dynamic parking assignment program 110B matches vehicle types to appropriate parking spaces based on vehicle characteristics such as size, EV versus non-EV, and handicap accessibility requirements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the features of Dekusar with those of Sham/Ramanujam. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve parking assignment accuracy by enabling the server to match parking locations to specific autonomous vehicle types, thereby better accommodating the diverse vehicle classes used in modern autonomous parking systems.
Claims 30, 31, 32, 37, 43, 44, 45, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sham (US 9,827,983 B2) in view of Ramanujam (US 10,023,231 B2), and in further view of Gupta (US 12,333,456 B2).
Claims 30 and 43: The Sham/Ramanujam combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe the autonomous vehicle detecting environmental data using a device selected from the group consisting of cameras, microphones, weather sensors, odor sensors, LIDAR, radar, sonar, forward looking infrared (FLIR), photodetectors, chemical sensors, wireless spectrum receiver, wireless service traffic analyzer, radiation sensor, air quality monitor, and combinations thereof.
Gupta, however, discloses the autonomous vehicle detecting environmental data using a device selected from the group consisting of cameras, microphones, weather sensors, odor sensors, LIDAR, radar, sonar, forward looking infrared (FLIR), photodetectors, chemical sensors, wireless spectrum receiver, wireless service traffic analyzer, radiation sensor, air quality monitor, and combinations thereof (col. 20:45–21:30. Connected vehicle 123 includes sensor set 126 comprising cameras, LIDAR, radar, and other sensors for environmental monitoring, explicitly encompassing the full range of sensor types recited in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the features of Gupta with those of Sham/Ramanujam. One would have been motivated to do this in order to equip the autonomous vehicle of Sham/Ramanujam with a more comprehensive environmental sensor suite, improving parking space detection accuracy and navigation safety in complex parking environments.
Claims 31 and 44: The Sham/Ramanujam/Gupta combination discloses those limitations cited above. Gupta further discloses the autonomous vehicle transmitting a proximity message to the server system comprising detected environmental data and the server system updating a confidence metric associated with the selected parking location in response to the detected environmental data (col. 22:36–23:45. Connected vehicle 123 transmits environmental sensor data to parking lot agent 198 of connected computing device 103; the parking lot agent uses machine learning to adjust parking space rankings and valuations based on real-time environmental conditions — including lighting, safety, and weather — received from the vehicle's sensors).
The rationale to combine Sham, Ramanujam, and Gupta is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 32 and 45: The Sham/Ramanujam/Gupta combination discloses those limitations cited above. Gupta further discloses the autonomous vehicle is selected from the group consisting of self-powered vehicles, portable stations, ground vehicles, nautical vehicles, automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, open cockpit vehicles, mobile kiosks, and airborne vehicles (col. 1:15–25; col. 19:35–40. Gupta discloses connected vehicle 123 as an autonomous vehicle encompassing a broad variety of vehicle types including automobiles, trucks, and unmanned aerial vehicles).
The rationale to combine Sham, Ramanujam, and Gupta is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 37: The Sham/Ramanujam/Gupta combination discloses those limitations cited above. Gupta further discloses the server system accepting transfer authorization from the remote communications device and the server system transmitting a transfer authorization signal to the autonomous vehicle permitting an occupation of the autonomous vehicle, subsequent to the autonomous vehicle occupying the selected parking location (col. 2:35–50; col. 21:35–55. Gupta discloses connected vehicle 123 as part of a ride-sharing fleet in which the parking lot agent 198 manages authorization for successive users to occupy the vehicle at different times, coordinating transfer of vehicle occupancy between service requests).
The rationale to combine Sham, Ramanujam, and Gupta is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 50: The Sham/Ramanujam/Gupta combination discloses those limitations cited above. Gupta further discloses the autonomous vehicle further comprises a transceiver accessible to a general public selected from the group consisting of a cellular telephone local booster, Internet booster, an access point (AP) selected from the group consisting of an IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) AP, an IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) AP, and combinations thereof (col. 19:35–21:23. Connected vehicle 123 includes communication unit 145 with V2X, cellular, and Wi-Fi capabilities, including IEEE 802.11 WLAN and cellular network connectivity accessible to users in proximity to the vehicle).
The rationale to combine Sham, Ramanujam, and Gupta is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not relied upon in the above references, the following references are deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Vicetic et al. (20140214319), directed to a system and method for searching for parking spaces.
Ferguson et al. (11467574), directed to an infrastructure monitoring system on autonomous vehicles.
Chen et al. (10579944), directed to a system and method for reserving parking spaces.
Myers et al. (7966215), directed to a combination reservation and navigation system and method.
Somoza et al. (20090125341), directed to coordinating and managing the rental of parking spaces.
Minster et al. (20170267233), directed to a method for autonomous vehicle parking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the claims under 35 USC 101 remain unpersuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity because they recite physical vehicle movement, real-world sensor measurements, and closed-loop control signaling between distributed machines, and that the Federal Circuit has consistently held that claims directed to sensor-based control and location validation in physical systems are not abstract, citing Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This argument is not persuasive.
In Thales, the claims were directed to a specific mathematical relationship — an unconventional arrangement of inertial sensors on a moving platform and a specific equation used to determine orientation. The Federal Circuit found the claims eligible because the mathematical relationship was applied in an unconventional way to a specific physical configuration of sensors. Here, by contrast, the claims do not recite any specific mathematical relationship, novel sensor arrangement, novel algorithm, or unconventional physical configuration. The claims recite the functional result of coordinating parking: select a location, send coordinates to the vehicle, vehicle goes there, vehicle sends back confirmation, server updates availability. This is a workflow — a sequence of coordinated actions between parties — not a specific technical solution analogous to the novel sensor geometry in Thales. The use of physical objects (an autonomous vehicle, sensors, a server) to carry out a reservation and occupancy management scheme does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.").
Furthermore, the characterization of the claims as a "control system, not a reservation system" is belied by the claim language itself. Independent claims 25 and 38 are fundamentally directed to a server receiving a parking location selection, transmitting coordinates to a vehicle, receiving a confirmation back, and updating an availability state. These are the hallmarks of a reservation and occupancy management system — the same abstract concept identified in the prior rejection with respect to the original claims. The recitation of machine-readable coordinates and sensor-derived position data does not change what the claims are fundamentally directed to. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding claims directed to networked charging station management abstract even though physical hardware was involved, because the focus of the claims was on the abstract idea of managing a network resource).
Next, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they improve the reliability of autonomous vehicle coordination and parking occupancy verification, citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This argument is not persuasive.
In McRO, the claims were directed to a specific set of rules that automated a previously-human-performed animation task in a way that was previously impossible — the rules themselves were the improvement, and no human had previously applied those particular rules to produce lip synchronization. Here, the claims do not recite any specific rules, algorithms, or technical mechanisms that achieve an improvement. The claims state that a server transmits coordinates, a vehicle navigates to those coordinates using its onboard navigation system, and the vehicle sends back its actual coordinates. How the vehicle navigates, how the sensors derive position data, how the coordinates are compared, and how the availability state is updated are not specified. The claims recite the desired outcome — reliable occupancy confirmation — but not the specific technical means of achieving it. Under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claims that merely recite the desired result of performing information collection, processing, and transmission without specifying a particular technical improvement in how those functions are performed do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Next, Applicant's argument that the problem "cannot be solved by humans using pen and paper" is similarly unpersuasive as a basis for patent eligibility. The human-practicability test is not a substitute for the practical application analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Many abstract ideas involve steps that are not practically performable by hand — the question is whether the claims recite a specific technical improvement to a technical field, not merely whether they require a computer to execute. The claims here do not recite any improvement to autonomous vehicle navigation technology, sensor technology, communication protocols, or computer functioning. They recite the use of those technologies as generic tools to carry out the abstract parking coordination scheme.
Next, Applicant argues that under Step 2B, the combination of unaffiliated server-to-vehicle control signaling, sensor-based location confirmation, coordinate comparison for physical validation, and automated availability updates tied to verified occupancy is not conventional, routine, or generic, and that the Examiner must provide evidence under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) that such a closed-loop autonomous parking coordination architecture was well-understood, routine, and conventional. This argument is not persuasive.
First, the Step 2B analysis is only reached if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. As set forth above, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore Step 2B need not be reached. The rejection is maintained on Step 2A, Prong Two grounds.
Second, to the extent the Step 2B analysis is considered, the individual elements of the claimed combination — a server transmitting GPS coordinates to a vehicle over a network, a vehicle using GPS and onboard sensors to navigate to those coordinates, and the vehicle transmitting a confirmation message back to the server — are each independently well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the prior art of record. Sham (US 9,827,983 B2) discloses a server transmitting GPS coordinates to an autonomous vehicle and confirming vehicle occupancy of a parking space. Ramanujam (US 10,023,231 B2) discloses the autonomous vehicle transmitting a confirmation message including its actual parking location coordinates back to the server. These references, which predate the filing date of the present application, demonstrate that each element of the alleged combination was individually well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The mere combination of individually conventional elements does not supply an inventive concept. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[A] claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly more' than that ineligible concept.").
Applicant's characterization of the combination as involving an "unaffiliated" server operating independently of the vehicle is not a technical distinction that confers patent eligibility. The independence of the server and vehicle is an architectural choice that defines the system context, not a specific technical improvement. The prior art of record teaches precisely this architecture — Sham's data center 130 operates as a third-party server that is unaffiliated with the autonomous vehicle it dispatches, and Ramanujam discloses a parking server receiving confirmation messages from autonomous vehicles operating independently of the server. Applicant has not identified any specific technical mechanism in the claims that is not already present in the prior art.
Finally, Applicant argues that USPTO Example 38 from the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) supports eligibility of the present claims by analogy. This argument is not persuasive.
Example 38 involves a method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer, in which the claims recite specific mathematical operations — generating normally distributed random values using a pseudo-random number generator based on initial values and tolerance ranges of circuit elements. The USPTO found those claims eligible because the specific mathematical steps were not practically performable in the human mind and did not constitute a method of organizing human activity. The present claims are not analogous. Unlike Example 38, the present claims do not recite any specific mathematical operation, algorithm, or computational technique. They recite the functional steps of a parking coordination workflow — selecting a location, dispatching a vehicle, receiving a confirmation, and updating availability — without specifying any particular mathematical or technical mechanism. Example 38's eligibility turned on the specific mathematical content of the claims, and no such content is present here. The analogy therefore fails.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not found persuasive and the § 101 rejection of claims 25-51 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 103 have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights