DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Response on 07/02/2026. Claims 1-16 and 21-23 are pending; claims 12-16, 22, 23 are withdrawn; and, claims 1-11 and 21 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 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 .
Election/Restrictions
The examiner has reviewed Applicant’s Response on 07/02/2026. Applicant has elected Group I with traverse. Group I includes claims 1-11. The examiner maintains the restriction requirement. Similarly, claim 23 is directed to a separate and distinct invention when compared to the elected Group I. New claim 23 includes recitations that claim 1 does not recite, along with separate utility such as communicating a list as opposed to simply having human rearrange cars. At the time of allowance, the examiner will review the pending claims and look at the withdrawn claims and make a determination if rejoinder is possible at that stage.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites “a second information tag” and “a vehicle parking space” in lines 1 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations as they have already been recited in claim 1. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
scanning a first information tag attached to a first vehicle, wherein the scanned first information tag corresponds to a first unique identifier (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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance);
scanning a second information tag attached to a vehicle parking space, wherein the scanned second information tag corresponds to a second unique identifier (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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance);
scanning a third information tag attached to a second vehicle, wherein the scanned third information tag corresponds to a third unique identifier (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
arranging the second vehicle in the parking space so that the second vehicle blocks the first vehicle from leaving the parking space (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A, B, C)).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0132291 to Dourney et al. (“Dourney”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0118198 to Yuan (“Yuan”).
With regard to claim 1, Dourney discloses the claimed method of arranging two or more vehicles in a parking space, the method comprising,
scanning a first information tag attached to a first vehicle, wherein the scanned first information tag corresponds to a first unique identifier; transmitting the first unique identifier to a database (Dourney, e.g., [0039]);
scanning a second information tag attached to a vehicle parking space, wherein the scanned second information tag corresponds to a second unique identifier; transmitting the second unique identifier to the database (Dourney, e.g. [0038] Some dealerships have tag . . . numbers also painted on specific parking spaces in the lot. When a mechanic goes out to find a car to be worked on, he can look at the tag hanging on the vehicle mirror, visible through the window, or he can find the parking spot associated with the tag number found on the RO. The tag has a unique number temporarily assigned to the vehicle to be serviced. Once a vehicle is picked up, the tag is returned to the service writer to be used again on a different service vehicle. Here, the vehicle tag and the parking tag are scanned and captured, and stored together in a database, inherently covering this limitation. The examiner notes that this is a 103 rejection as well, and the combination of the known element shown in Dourney clearly indicates that scanning a tag/identifier by a mobile device was performed at the time of invention.);
scanning a third information tag attached to a second vehicle, wherein the scanned third information tag corresponds to a third unique identifier; transmitting the third unique identifier to the database (Dourney, e.g. abstract A collection of software scripts, programs and web pages that capture, organize, and store wireless and digital device data and images of customer/lot vehicles for use in vehicle dealerships, service, and repair locations. Reports and views of the collected, organized data in real-time are provided.); and
arranging the second vehicle in the parking space so that the second vehicle blocks the first vehicle from leaving the parking space (Dourney does not teach this limitation. See Yuan e.g. Fig. 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the parking art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dourney to include the ability to arrange parking in tandem, as this provides the added benefit of, “One solution for increasing parking spaces is to allow tandem parking. In a tandem parking scenario two or more cars are parked end-to-end. Walls, columns, or other vehicles may be located to the sides of the tandem parked cars. Accordingly, tandem parking increases the number of vehicles that may be parked in a given space. Usually, the first car to park in a tandem spot is blocked from exiting the parking spot by a subsequent (e.g., second, third, etc.) car.” Yuan, e.g. [0002].).
With regard to claim 2, Dourney further discloses, transmitting to the database a request to link the first unique identifier and the second unique identifier (Dourney, e.g. [0038] Some dealerships have tag . . . numbers also painted on specific parking spaces in the lot. When a mechanic goes out to find a car to be worked on, he can look at the tag hanging on the vehicle mirror, visible through the window, or he can find the parking spot associated with the tag number found on the RO. Clear association is shown, inherent that this was input as being together, or linked).
With regard to claim 3, Dourney further discloses, scanning a second information tag attached to a vehicle parking space a second time after the third information tag is scanned (Dourney, e.g. [0038] Some dealerships have tag . . . numbers also painted on specific parking spaces in the lot. When a mechanic goes out to find a car to be worked on, he can look at the tag hanging on the vehicle mirror, visible through the window, or he can find the parking spot associated with the tag number found on the RO. The tag has a unique number temporarily assigned to the vehicle to be serviced. Once a vehicle is picked up, the tag is returned to the service writer to be used again on a different service vehicle. Here, the vehicle tag and the parking tag are scanned and captured, and stored together in a database, inherently covering this limitation. The examiner notes that this is a 103 rejection as well, and the combination of the known element shown in Dourney clearly indicates that scanning a tag/identifier by a mobile device was performed at the time of invention. As for the temporal aspects, the examiner notes that this is a 103 rejections, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts an obvious modification).
With regard to claim 4, Dourney further discloses transmitting a request for at least one of the at least two parked vehicles to the database (Dourney, e.g. Fig. 12).
With regard to claim 5, Dourney further discloses receiving from the database a list of vehicles comprising: the requested vehicle and all the vehicles of the at least two parked vehicles that block the requested vehicle from exiting the parking space (Dourney, e.g. [0065], [0077-78] etc.; Fig. 12; See also Yuan at Fig. 4, 5, etc.).
With regard to claim 6, Dourney does not teach claim 6. See Yuan, multiple vehicles, and one vehicle is parked in by at least one other vehicle at Fig. 2. See combination above.
With regard to claim 8, Dourney further discloses wherein the first unique identifier comprises a timestamp (see e.g. [0040-41]).
With regard to claim 9, Dourney further discloses wherein the second unique identifier comprises a spot identifier (e.g. [0038]).
With regard to claim 10, Dourney further discloses wherein the second unique identifier comprises a timestamp (see e.g. [0040-41]).
With regard to claim 11, Dourney further discloses wherein the third unique identifier comprises a timestamp (see e.g. [0040-41]).
Claim(s) 7, 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dourney, Yuan, in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,503,168 to Konrardy et al. (“Konrardy”).
With regard to claim 7, Dourney teaches storing scanned vehicle-identification information in a server/database and time-stamping submitted vehicle data. Dourney does not teach where the list is based on parking order values corresponding to each vehicle. Konrardy teaches stacking vehicles in FIFO/LIFO lanes or queues based on expected parking duration and estimated retrieval time (See e.g. Konrardy col. 53 ln 64 – col. 54 ln 36), and using a server to determine movement plans when other vehicles must be moved (See e.g. Konrardy col. 53 ln 64 – col. 54 ln 36). In other words, Konrardy uses e.g. the queue order /expected duration / and estimated retrieval time (combined or singularly) as the claimed values that determines how vehicles are arranged and moved. The examiner notes that this is an obvious rejection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the parking management art to modify the combination of Dourney / Yuan to further include where the list is based on parking order values, as shown in Konrardy above, where this is beneficial in that doing such analysis and determination redices the need to move vehicles. See Kanrardy col. 53 ln 64-67. It would have been obvious to base the list of vehicles to be moved/cleared on such parking-order values because FIFO/LIFO queue position, timestamp, or expected retrieval time provides a predictable way to determine which vehicles block access and which vehicles should be moved first.
With regard to claim 21, Dourney further teaches: receiving a request for at least the first vehicle (Dourney e.g.. [0003] customer comes back to dealer to retrieve can after service; Yuan, e.g. [0040-41] ); transmitting to the database the request (Dourney e.g. [0078]; Yuan e.g. Fig. 4, 430); receiving from the database a list of vehicles comprising the first vehicle and the second vehicle that blocks the first vehicle from exiting the parking space, wherein the list is based on parking order values corresponding to each vehicle (Dourney does not teach where the list is based on parking order values corresponding to each vehicle. Konrardy teaches stacking vehicles in FIFO/LIFO lanes or queues based on expected parking duration and estimated retrieval time (See e.g. Konrardy col. 53 ln 64 – col. 54 ln 36), and using a server to determine movement plans when other vehicles must be moved (See e.g. Konrardy col. 53 ln 64 – col. 54 ln 36). In other words, Konrardy uses e.g. the queue order /expected duration / and estimated retrieval time (combined or singularly) as the claimed values that determines how vehicles are arranged and moved. The examiner notes that this is an obvious rejection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the parking management art to modify the combination of Dourney / Yuan to further include where the list is based on parking order values, as shown in Konrardy above, where this is beneficial in that doing such analysis and determination redices the need to move vehicles. See Kanrardy col. 53 ln 64-67. It would have been obvious to base the list of vehicles to be moved/cleared on such parking-order values because FIFO/LIFO queue position, timestamp, or expected retrieval time provides a predictable way to determine which vehicles block access and which vehicles should be moved first.); displaying the list of vehicles (see where the vehicles are displayed at Yuan, Fig. 2); and moving each vehicle in the list of vehicles (See Yuan, Fig. 5; see Konrardy e.g. Fig. 10, 1012, combinations above).
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
Prosecution Insights