DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s response on 09/14/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, 21-25 are pending; claims 12-14, 16, 22, 23 are withdrawn; and claims 1-10 24-25 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention 01/29/2024.
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 .
Claims 1-10, 24-25 are Distinguished Over Prior Art
The examiner has thoroughly searched the claimed subject matter. The examiner has been unable to find the specific limitations of the independent claim 1. Accordingly, the examiner finds that claims 1-10, 24-25 are distinguished over the prior art and the examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 USC 102/103.
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 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-11 and 21 are process claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 is found to recite abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
arranging a first vehicle in the first subspace of the parking space (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C));
scanning a first information tag corresponding to a first unique identifier associated with the first vehicle (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A, B, C); see also Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B);
transmitting the first unique identifier to a database, wherein the database comprises a data structure identifying, for a given vehicle, a vehicle-in-front variable, a vehicle-behind variable, and a converted number, the converted number having an integer value indicating a position in the stack of subspaces, and wherein the first unique identifier is associated in the database with a first entry (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance; see Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B);
scanning a second information tag corresponding to a second unique identifier associated with the parking space (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A, B, C); see also Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B);
transmitting the second unique identifier to the database, wherein the second unique identifier is associated in the database with the first entry (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance; see Step 2B);
arranging a second vehicle in the second subspace of the parking space so that the second vehicle, in the second subspace, blocks the first vehicle, in the first subspace, from leaving the parking space (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A, B, C));
scanning a third information tag corresponding to a third unique identifier associated with a second vehicle (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A, B, C); see also Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B);
transmitting the third unique identifier to the database (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance); and
scanning the second information tag corresponding to the second unique identifier associated with the parking space (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A, B, C); see also Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B)
modifying, based on the transmitting the third unique identifier and for the second entry associated with the second vehicle, the vehicle-behind variable of the second entry to identify the first unique identifier, setting the converted number of the second entry to equal the converted number of the first entry minus one, and setting a location of the first and second entries to a location associated with the second unique identifier (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721); and
modifying, based on the transmitting the third unique identifier and for the second entry associated with the second vehicle, the vehicle-in-front variable of the first entry to identify the third unique identifier (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea with practical application. Claim 1 recites additional limitations relating to scanning tags and the like.
For the scanning limitations, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(III), referring to Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit then continued with its analysis under part one of the Alice/Mayo test finding that the claims are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the court determined that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account” nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” Id. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the exception is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES). This applies here as Applicant has not improved how the information tag is scanned, it is just scanned using available technology.
The examiner notes that for the additional limitations of claim 1 it appears the “apply it” rationale applies here, as shown in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, claim 1 is found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Claim 1 is not found to include significantly more. The additional limitation analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied here. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
For the limitations of claim 1 relating to sending and receiving data, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) where this is found to be WURC activity by courts. For the limitations of claim 1 relating to scanning the info tag, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v) where this is found to be WURC activity by the courts. For the limitations relating to storing data in database, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii-iv). When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claims 2-5 include WURC activity of e.g. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i, v). Claims 6-10 recite abstract idea of e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Claim 21 recites more abstract idea performed using WURC activity, in apply it manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has withdrawn the previously-made rejections under 35 USC 112 based on the amendments made.
For the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the recitation of the specific data structure. However, storing data in a data structure, is not sufficient, and is merely performing abstract idea of storing data using “apply it” technology. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
