Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/966,780

IOT-BASED INTELLIGENT PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Examiner
INGRAM, THOMAS P
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
512 granted / 585 resolved
+35.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 585 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims This action is in response to the application No. 18/966780 filed on 12/3/2024. Claim 1 is/are pending for examination. 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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an information transmission module, a path planning module, a reservation and soring module, a visual recognition module, a three-dimensional modeling module, and and a data fusion module. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For purposes of examination each of the above modules has been interpreted to be a system or sub-system involved in processing specific parameters relating to the parking lot server. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 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. Claim 1 is 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. The term “optimal route” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Optimal, in the broadest sense, could refer to a number of parameters which are not clearly defined by the claims or the specification of the present application. For example, routes can be “optimized” based on the relative preference of certain parameters the specific user would want, such as time, cost, distance, carbon footprint, safety, etc. Each of those unique optimization parameters would arrive at different results for what the “optimal route” could be. Therefore, the claims stand as indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter While the claim(s) is/are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for being indefinite, the prior art of record as a whole does not adequately teach or suggest the particularly claimed subject matter. If the 112 issues were resolved by way of amendment or persuasive argument, then the claim(s) would stand as allowable. The claim(s) contain a robust amount of limitations that would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the prior art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET. 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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. /Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602056
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SOCIALIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591250
ROBOT TASK EXECUTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, ROBOT, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591251
Navigation Method and System Using Color Codes
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590437
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF PROVIDING RIDE CONTROL WITH A POWER MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585286
MAP GENERATION SYSTEM AND MAP GENERATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 585 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month