DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 4, 8, 9, and 17 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16, and 18-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 11, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the amended claim limitations are not a mere abstract idea and not merely directed to a method of organizing human behavior, because the limitations are directed to computer-implemented verification and control of activation conditions in a networked system, rather than to organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims are directed toward a computer implemented system, the computing elements are recited at a high-level of generality, with no additional specificity or structure, such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (See Published Specification: ¶36-37, ¶50-54). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, although the claims recite, “…activate the moveable equipment for use; and… confirming activation of the reservation”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations include simply starting the user’s rental for billing purposes, which is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as marketing/sales activities or business relations. This interpretation is supported by the published specification (See Published Specification: ¶68-69).
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 12, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-16, and 18-24 is/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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 recite(s) a system and series of steps for reserving a movable equipment for a user, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or commercial or legal interactions, such as marketing/sales activities or business relations. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receive the location of the movable equipment’; ‘monitor the GPS location of the user…’; ‘provide the location of the movable equipment, a pick-up point for picking the movable equipment and/or access instructions at the pick-up point’; ‘determine an owner of the movable equipment’; ‘retrieve owner instructions relating to the movable equipment’; ‘determine whether the user is at the pick-up point…’; ‘prompting the user to provide identification information of the movable equipment’; ‘determine whether the identification information provided matches stored identification information of the movable equipment’; ‘determine a damage condition of the movable equipment’; ‘receive an input validating the pre- existing damages’; ‘identify one or more parts of the movable equipment requiring a safety inspection’; ‘instructing the user to inspect the one or more parts requiring the safety inspection’; ‘receive one or more media inputs associated with the safety inspection of each of the one or more parts’; ‘determine that each of the one or more parts is safe for use’; ‘activate the moveable equipment for use’; ‘generate a user notification’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18-24 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for reserving a movable equipment for a user, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or commercial or legal interactions, such as marketing/sales activities or business relations. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a reservation management device’, ‘a server platform’, ‘a least one processor’, ‘memory’, and ‘a user interface’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality, with no additional specificity or structure, such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (See Specification: ¶36-37, ¶50-54). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data using ‘a user tracking device’, ‘an equipment tracking device’, and ‘GPS receivers’.
The specification of the current application recites the “user tracking device”, “equipment tracking device”, and “GPS trackers/receivers” at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting location data) with no additional specificity or structure (See Specification: ¶21, ¶42, ¶77). Therefore, these limitations amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 1 and prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16, and 18-24 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16, and 18-24 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16, and 18-24 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record is Shoen (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20170206475), Stanfield (U.S. Patent App. No. 20130238167), Skinner (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150186988), Fish (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20170190223), Shike (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20040054600), Mathai (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210239478).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest identifying one or more parts of the movable equipment requiring a safety inspection ;causing instructions instructing the user to inspect the one or more parts requiring the safety inspection to be displayed on the user interface; determining that each of the one or more parts is safe for use based on the one or more received media inputs; receiving one or more media inputs associated with the inspection of each of the one or more parts; and in response to determining: (i) the identification information provided matches the stored identification of the movable equipment; (ii) each of the one or more parts is safe for use based on the safety inspection; and (iii) the movable equipment is at the pick-up point based on the location of the movable equipment; activating the moveable equipment for use; and generating a user notification confirming activation of the reservation, and causing the user notification to be displayed on the user interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights