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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to communications received 5/1/2025, Applicant, on 8/1/2025, amended claims 1, 13 and 18-19. Claims 1-2, 4-20 remain pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendments
With respect to Applicant’s amendments, the previously raised 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are hereby removed. However, a new 112(a) rejection is raised.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered. However, the art rejections remain and are updated below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 103 arguments, Applicant argues that the cited reference, Sakurada is “silent on first analyzing the information transmitted from the vehicle 10 and then analyzing information contained in the request transmitted from the user terminal 20 to determine a return zone” (See Remarks at pg. 10). Specifically, Applicant asserts that “Sakurada analyzes state information of the of the moving object first and then the return request information transmitted from the user terminal is analyzed” (See Remarks at pg. 10). However, Examiner notes that the amended claimed language “determining a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal” is so lacking in descriptive support in the specification, drawings, or within the originally filed claims such that one skilled in the art would be unable to reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. While Applicant’s Specification recites that the “return information may be determined in consideration of various factors such as the congestion level of a parking zone, vehicle state information, battery state information, fuel state information, reuse of a user, use of a valet service, a group of users (or passengers), the usage history of a user (or a passenger) and the profile of a user (or a passenger)” (See Applicant’s Specification, ¶0110). Also, Applicant’s disclosure identifies that “the management server may check user information of a user who is currently using a moving object, i.e., a current user, and set a parking zone based on this” and “the management server may check the state of the moving object and set a parking zone as a maintenance zone in consideration of the state of the moving object” (See Applicant’s Specification, ¶0121 and 0130). Therefore, while the disclosure identifies that the return zone is determined by state information from the moving object and user information from the user terminal, a review of the original disclosure indicates a complete absence of any explicit, inherent, or implicit description of the recited “determining a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal.” Examiner interprets that the order in which information is transmitted as a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in that art because Applicant has not disclosed that transmitting and analyzing return request information in a particular order (i.e. first by analyzing information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal) is used for a particular purpose nor provides any advantage. Sakurada’s disclosure identifies a user submitting end use information via a mobile terminal to trigger a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The controller then receives positional information in the GNSS module from the moving object that is further analyzed to determine a valid return location (See Sakurada ¶0198-0199). Therefore, Sakurada’s disclosure is more than sufficient to teach the argued amended limitation “determining a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal.” See the updated rejection below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claims 1 and 18-19 recite the claim language of “where in the return zone of the moving object is determined by a specified priority based on a consecutive order of a state of the moving object, a congestion level of a destination, a request of reuse, and the user information.”
However, the claim language reciting “determining a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal” is so lacking in descriptive support in the specification, drawings, or within the originally filed claims such that one skilled in the art would be unable to reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. While Applicant’s Specification recites that the “return information may be determined in consideration of various factors such as the congestion level of a parking zone, vehicle state information, battery state information, fuel state information, reuse of a user, use of a valet service, a group of users (or passengers), the usage history of a user (or a passenger) and the profile of a user (or a passenger)” (See Applicant’s Specification, ¶0110). Also, Applicant’s disclosure identifies that “the management server may check user information of a user who is currently using a moving object, i.e., a current user, and set a parking zone based on this” and “the management server may check the state of the moving object and set a parking zone as a maintenance zone in consideration of the state of the moving object” (See Applicant’s Specification, ¶0121 and 0130). Therefore, while the disclosure identifies that the return zone is determined by state information from the moving object and user information from the user terminal, a review of the original disclosure indicates a complete absence of any explicit, inherent, or implicit description of the recited analysis conducted in the order of ““determining a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal.” Accordingly, claims 1 and 18-19 are rejected for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2, 4-17 and 20 depend on Claims 1 and 18-19 and fail to cure the deficiencies noted above, and are therefore rendered similarly indefinite because of their dependency from an indefinite base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada (United States Patent Application Publication, 2019/0318275) in view of Reaser (United States Patent Application Publication, 2020/0394745).
As per Claim 1, Sakurada discloses a method of processing data in a fleet system, the method comprising:
determining whether a return event has occurred (Sakurada: ¶0196-0205 details the operations that occur during the return event. See ¶0199 and embodiment S156 where the mobile terminal determines whether or not the vehicle has been returned to the valid return location.);
receiving return request information from a user terminal and return request information from the moving object, wherein the return request information transmitted from the moving object comprises a state of the moving object, and wherein the return request information transmitted from the user terminal comprises a request of reuse and a user information (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The determination of the return zone is performed through receiving vehicle information from the vehicle. See ¶0097-0098 where the vehicle has a GNSS module (See embodiment 13 on Fig. 1) that communicates vehicle information, such as the state the vehicle and positional information (e.g. return request information from the moving object) to the vehicle management server. See ¶0132 and 0138 where the registered user information database provides user information for car sharing purposes. See ¶0142 where the user information is also used to extract suitable return zones (i.e. parking stations). It is noted that ¶0042 identifies that the vehicles of the disclosure are provided to users for car share, which indicates that a user’s request for use is a request for reuse.);
determining a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The determination of the return zone is performed through receiving vehicle information from the vehicle. See ¶0097-0098 where the vehicle has a GNSS module (See embodiment 13 on Fig. 1) that communicates vehicle information, such as the state the vehicle and positional information (e.g. return request information from the moving object) to the vehicle management server. Sakurada: ¶0142: Vehicle information and user information received (see above rejection for citations) is analyzed to determine a return parking station in the vicinity. See ¶0109-0110 where candidate return locations are determined by analyzing the request information on vehicles. Examiner interprets that the order in which information is transmitted as a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in that art because Applicant has not disclosed that transmitting and analyzing return request information in a particular order (i.e. first by analyzing information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal) is used for a particular purpose nor provides any advantage.);
determining return information of the moving object in consideration the return request information, wherein the return information of the moving object comprises information on the return zone of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0107-0111: The inter-server communication IF uses the communicator to connect to a predetermined communication network so as to transmit and receive various signals including data signals and control signals with the carsharing management server bi-directionally. The reservation unit, the authentication key obtainer, the vehicle provision scheduler, and the like exchange signals with the car-sharing management server through the inter-server communication IF. Based on signals received from the car-sharing management server, it can be determined which vehicles have been returned. The returned vehicles are candidate vehicles for a user. Based on the user desired conditions and basic information (See ¶0132 and 0138 where this comprises of moving object information, user information, and vehicle state information), a parking station as the returned location is registered.), and
providing the return information to a user (Sakurada: ¶0110: A return location is displayed on the display screen.); and
and h) return zone (Sakurada: ¶0051: Parking places serve as return locations for a car-sharing vehicle.)
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Reaser discloses:
controlling a processor of the moving object to autonomously move to the… zone based on the return information of the moving object (Reaser: ¶0043: Once the event status is identified as completed a vehicle may autonomously be moved to a return pickup area. See server in ¶0046.)
wherein the… zone of the moving object is determined based on a congestion level of a destination determined based on the return request information, a request of reuse, and the user information (Reaser: ¶0031: A user profile is used to determine a specified priority status to assign parking spaces a particular vehicle. The user profile designates vehicle status condition data [state of the moving object], authorized subsequent vehicle rental status [whether the moving object is being reused], etc. See ¶0039 where the user profile identifies user information such as the user being the owner of the vehicle or not. See ¶0045 where the congestion levels (i.e., the number of vehicles exceed the parking available) are associated to the priority of the profile assigned to a vehicle to determine optimal parking arrangements.);
wherein the state of the moving object is information associated with moving object components that are used for the operation of the moving object; wherein the state of the moving object includes maintenance state information, vehicle state information, or battery state information (Reaser: ¶0048: A service event occurs and a user is riding in the vehicle, the sensor data monitoring may be triggered, and a certain parameter of vehicle states data may be identified. Vehicle sensor data collects vehicle state information, such as vehicle battery charge/fuel level, speed data, collision data, etc. This is sensor data can be used to determine maintenance services to be performed.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine Sakurada in view of Reaser’s determination of optimal parking arrangements because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for vehicle analyses and determining parking stations, and because incorporating Reaser’s determination of optimal parking arrangements in Sakurada would have served Sakurada’s pursuit of effectively determining a valid parking location for a vehicle (See Sakurada, ¶0156) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1, wherein occurrence of the return event is generated based on position information of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0199: Determining whether the vehicle has been returned is based on the positioning information in the GNSS module of the vehicle.).
As per Claim 6, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user information further comprises user activity information configured based on activity time information and visiting place information of the user (Sakurada: ¶0142-0143 and 0155: The vehicle use monitoring unit can monitor the vehicle/user’s location and positional information. The monitoring is used to determine user activity information during the use time period to determine is any changes occur.).
As per Claim 7, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user information comprises information on a user who uses the moving object and information on a user who rides in the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0138: The registered user information includes basic information of each of the multiple users registered for car sharing (e.g., identification information such as user ID, name, address, type of the user such as vehicle provided user, associate vehicle providing user, or general user, owned vehicle in the case of a vehicle providing user or associate vehicle providing user, etc.).).
As per Claim 11, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the return zone of the moving object comprises at least one of a user-based designated zone, a valet service designated zone, a reuse-only designated zone, a charging designated zone, a maintenance designated zone, a preventive designated zone, or a heterogeneous fleet service zone (Sakurada: See ¶0051 where the schedule information of the vehicle may include return location of the vehicle, such as a parking lot at the home of the owner [i.e. a user-based designated zone].).
As per Claim 12, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the return information of the moving object comprises information indicating a parking lot specified in the return zone of the moving object (Sakurada: See ¶0051 where the schedule information of the vehicle may include return location of the vehicle, such as a parking lot at the home of the owner.).
As per Claim 13, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the processor of the moving object comprises: checking a return completion request of the user; checking position information of the moving object at a point in time when the return completion request is made; and performing return processing of the moving object based on position information of the moving object and the return information of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0198-0204: A user activates a termination operation to end the use of the vehicle. The mobile terminal receives the notice of the end of use of the vehicle and determines whether the vehicle has been returned is based on the positioning information in the GNSS module of the vehicle. Specifically, when a difference between the positional information on the mobile terminal and the positional information on the parking station as the return location is within a predetermined range, the mobile terminal may determine that the vehicle has been returned to the valid return location. If having determined that the vehicle has been returned to the parking station as the valid return location, the mobile terminal performs the processing of the return and invalidates the keys.).
As per Claim 14, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the performing return processing of the moving object comprises: determining normal return or abnormal return in consideration of the position information of the moving object and the return information of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0198-0204: A user activates a termination operation to end the use of the vehicle. The mobile terminal receives the notice of the end of use of the vehicle and determines whether the vehicle has been returned is based on the positioning information in the GNSS module of the vehicle. Specifically, when a difference between the positional information on the mobile terminal and the positional information on the parking station as the return location is within a predetermined range, the mobile terminal may determine that the vehicle has been returned to the valid return location according to the return location. See ¶0156 where an alert may be issued when a vehicle is not returned to a valid parking station based on the positional information of the vehicle deeming an abnormal return.).
As per Claim 15, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the performing return processing of the moving object comprises: determining an abnormal return state in response to that the position information of the moving object at the point in time when the return completion request is made does not match an area set in the return information of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0198-0204: A user activates a termination operation to end the use of the vehicle. The mobile terminal receives the notice of the end of use of the vehicle and determines whether the vehicle has been returned is based on the positioning information in the GNSS module of the vehicle. Specifically, when a difference between the positional information on the mobile terminal and the positional information on the parking station as the return location is within a predetermined range, the mobile terminal may determine that the vehicle has been returned to the valid return location according to the return location. See ¶0156 where an alert may be issued when a vehicle is not returned to a valid parking station based on the positional information of the vehicle deeming an abnormal return.).
As per Claim 18, Sakurada discloses a fleet service management server, comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive a signal; and a processor configured to control the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to check occurrence of a return event from a user terminal or a moving object (Sakurada: ¶0107-0111: The inter-server communication IF uses the communicator to connect to a predetermined communication network so as to transmit and receive various signals including data signals and control signals with the carsharing management server bi-directionally. The reservation unit, the authentication key obtainer, the vehicle provision scheduler, and the like exchange signals with the car-sharing management server through the inter-server communication IF. See ¶0196-0205 details the operations that occur during the return event. See ¶0199 and embodiment S156 where the mobile terminal determines whether or not the vehicle has been returned to the valid return location.),
receive return request information from the user terminal and return request information from the moving object, wherein the return request information transmitted from the moving object comprises a state of the moving object, and wherein the return request information transmitted from the user terminal comprises a request of reuse and a user information (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The determination of the return zone is performed through receiving vehicle information from the vehicle. See ¶0097-0098 where the vehicle has a GNSS module (See embodiment 13 on Fig. 1) that communicates vehicle information, such as the state the vehicle and positional information (e.g. return request information from the moving object) to the vehicle management server. See ¶0132 and 0138 where the registered user information database provides user information for car sharing purposes. See ¶0142 where the user information is also used to extract suitable return zones (i.e. parking stations). It is noted that ¶0042 identifies that the vehicles of the disclosure are provided to users for car share, which indicates that a user’s request for use is a request for reuse.);
determine a return zone by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The determination of the return zone is performed through receiving vehicle information from the vehicle. See ¶0097-0098 where the vehicle has a GNSS module (See embodiment 13 on Fig. 1) that communicates vehicle information, such as the state the vehicle and positional information (e.g. return request information from the moving object) to the vehicle management server. Sakurada: ¶0142: Vehicle information and user information received (see above rejection for citations) is analyzed to determine a return parking station in the vicinity. See ¶0109-0110 where candidate return locations are determined by analyzing the request information on vehicles. Examiner interprets that the order in which information is transmitted as a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in that art because Applicant has not disclosed that transmitting and analyzing return request information in a particular order (i.e. first by analyzing information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal) is used for a particular purpose nor provides any advantage.);
determine return information of a moving object in consideration the return request information, wherein the return information of the moving object comprises information on a return zone of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0107-0111: The inter-server communication IF uses the communicator to connect to a predetermined communication network so as to transmit and receive various signals including data signals and control signals with the carsharing management server bi-directionally. The reservation unit, the authentication key obtainer, the vehicle provision scheduler, and the like exchange signals with the car-sharing management server through the inter-server communication IF. Based on signals received from the car-sharing management server, it can be determined which vehicles have been returned. The returned vehicles are candidate vehicles for a user. Based on the user desired conditions and basic information (See ¶0132 and 0138 where this comprises of moving object information, user information, and vehicle state information), a parking station as the returned location is registered.) and
provide the return information to a user (Sakurada: ¶0110: A return location is displayed on the display screen.).
f, g and h) return zone (Sakurada: ¶0051: Parking places serve as return locations for a car-sharing vehicle.)
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Reaser discloses:
control a processor of the moving object to autonomously move to the… zone or allow the user terminal to control the moving object to move to the… zone based on the return information of the moving object (Reaser: ¶0043: Once the event status is identified as completed a vehicle may autonomously be moved to a return pickup area. See server in ¶0046.),
wherein the… zone of the moving object is determined based on congestion level of a destination determined based on the return request information, a request of reuse, and the user information (Reaser: ¶0031: A user profile is used to determine a specified priority status to assign parking spaces a particular vehicle. The user profile designates vehicle status condition data [state of the moving object], authorized subsequent vehicle rental status [whether the moving object is being reused], etc. See ¶0039 where the user profile identifies user information such as the user being the owner of the vehicle or not. See ¶0045 where the congestion levels (i.e., the number of vehicles exceed the parking available) are associated to the priority of the profile assigned to a vehicle to determine optimal parking arrangements. Examiner notes that Reaser’s disclosure fails to describe how the criteria of the specified priority are based on a consecutive order or how the consecutive order of criteria is crucial to determining a specified priority. Accordingly, Examiner interprets that “the consecutive order” is a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in that art because Applicant has not disclosed that determining a specified priority in a consecutive order of a state of the moving object, congestion level of a destination, a request of reuse and the user information solves any stated problem, is used for a particular purpose nor provides any advantage.);
wherein the state of the moving object is information associated with moving object components that are used for an operation of the moving object; and wherein the state of the moving object includes maintenance state information, vehicle state information, or battery state information (Reaser: ¶0048: A service event occurs and a user is riding in the vehicle, the sensor data monitoring may be triggered, and a certain parameter of vehicle states data may be identified. Vehicle sensor data collects vehicle state information, such as vehicle battery charge/fuel level, speed data, collision data, etc. This is sensor data can be used to determine maintenance services to be performed.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine Sakurada in view of Reaser’s determination of optimal parking arrangements because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for vehicle analyses and determining parking stations, and because incorporating Reaser’s determination of optimal parking arrangements in Sakurada would have served Sakurada’s pursuit of effectively determining a valid parking location for a vehicle (See Sakurada, ¶0156) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 19, Sakurada discloses a moving object included in a fleet system to provide a fleet service, the moving object comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive a signal; and a processor configured to control the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to generate return request information based on a return event and transmit the return request information to a fleet service management server included in the fleet system, wherein the return request information transmitted from the moving object comprises a state of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The determination of the return zone is performed through receiving vehicle information from the vehicle. See ¶0097-0098 where the vehicle has a GNSS module (See embodiment 13 on Fig. 1) that communicates vehicle information, such as the state the vehicle and positional information (e.g. return request information from the moving object) to the vehicle management server.),
receive return information of the moving object from the fleet service management server, wherein the return information of the moving object comprises information on a return zone of the moving object (Sakurada: ¶0107-0111: The inter-server communication IF uses the communicator to connect to a predetermined communication network so as to transmit and receive various signals including data signals and control signals with the carsharing management server bi-directionally. The reservation unit, the authentication key obtainer, the vehicle provision scheduler, and the like exchange signals with the car-sharing management server through the inter-server communication IF. Based on signals received from the car-sharing management server, it can be determined which vehicles have been returned. The returned vehicles are candidate vehicles for a user. Based on the user desired conditions and basic information (See ¶0132 and 0138 where this comprises of moving object information, user information, and vehicle state information), a parking station as the returned location is registered.),
provide the return information of the moving object to a user terminal (Sakurada: ¶0110: A return location is displayed on the display screen.).
e) wherein the return zone is determined by first analyzing the return request information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing return request information transmitted from the user terminal (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. The determination of the return zone is performed through receiving vehicle information from the vehicle. See ¶0097-0098 where the vehicle has a GNSS module (See embodiment 13 on Fig. 1) that communicates vehicle information, such as the state the vehicle and positional information (e.g. return request information from the moving object) to the vehicle management server. Sakurada: ¶0142: Vehicle information and user information received (see above rejection for citations) is analyzed to determine a return parking station in the vicinity. See ¶0109-0110 where candidate return locations are determined by analyzing the request information on vehicles. Examiner interprets that the order in which information is transmitted as a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in that art because Applicant has not disclosed that transmitting and analyzing return request information in a particular order (i.e. first by analyzing information transmitted from the moving object and then analyzing the return request information transmitted from the user terminal) is used for a particular purpose nor provides any advantage.),
b, d and e) return zone (Sakurada: ¶0051: Parking places serve as return locations for a car-sharing vehicle.),
g) wherein the return request information transmitted from the user terminal comprises a request of reuse and a user information, (Sakurada: ¶0198-0199: The user may submit an end of use operation via the mobile terminal, which then triggers a determination of a return zone for the vehicle. T See ¶0132 and 0138 where the registered user information database provides user information for car sharing purposes. See ¶0142 where the user information is also used to extract suitable return zones (i.e. parking stations). It is noted that ¶0042 identifies that the vehicles of the disclosure are provided to users for car share, which indicates that a user’s request for use is a request for reuse.);
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Reaser discloses:
perform an autonomous driving to the… zone or move to the return zone via control of the terminal device based on the return information of the moving object, (Reaser: ¶0043: Once the event status is identified as completed a vehicle may autonomously be moved to a return pickup area. See server in ¶0046.),
wherein the… zone of the moving object is determined based on a congestion level of a destination, determined based on the return request information, (Reaser: ¶0031: A user profile is used to determine a specified priority status to assign parking spaces a particular vehicle. The user profile designates vehicle status condition data [state of the moving object], authorized subsequent vehicle rental status [whether the moving object is being reused], etc. See ¶0039 where the user profile identifies user information such as the user being the owner of the vehicle or not. See ¶0045 where the congestion levels (i.e., the number of vehicles exceed the parking available) are associated to the priority of the profile assigned to a vehicle to determine optimal parking arrangements.);
h) wherein the state of the moving object is information associated with moving object components that are used for an operation of the moving object; wherein the state of the moving object includes maintenance state information, vehicle state information, or battery state information (Reaser: ¶0048: A service event occurs and a user is riding in the vehicle, the sensor data monitoring may be triggered, and a certain parameter of vehicle states data may be identified. Vehicle sensor data collects vehicle state information, such as vehicle battery charge/fuel level, speed data, collision data, etc. This is sensor data can be used to determine maintenance services to be performed.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine Sakurada in view of Reaser’s determination of optimal parking arrangements because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for vehicle analyses and determining parking stations, and because incorporating Reaser’s determination of optimal parking arrangements in Sakurada would have served Sakurada’s pursuit of effectively determining a valid parking location for a vehicle (See Sakurada, ¶0156) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 20, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the moving object of claim 19, wherein the processor is configured to: check a parking zone or a parking lot of an area where the moving object is parked, and compare the checked parking zone or parking lot with the return information of the moving object to determine normal return or abnormal return (Sakurada: ¶0198-0204: A user activates a termination operation to end the use of the vehicle. The mobile terminal receives the notice of the end of use of the vehicle and determines whether the vehicle has been returned is based on the positioning information in the GNSS module of the vehicle. Specifically, when a difference between the positional information on the mobile terminal and the positional information on the parking station as the return location is within a predetermined range, the mobile terminal may determine that the vehicle has been returned to the valid return location according to the return location. See ¶0156 where an alert may be issued when a vehicle is not returned to a valid parking station based on the positional information of the vehicle deeming an abnormal return.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada (United States Patent Publication, 2019/0318275) in view of Reaser (United States Patent Application Publication, 2020/0394745) in further view of Umeda et al. (United States Patent Publication, 2019/0251587, hereinafter referred to as Umeda).
As per Claim 4, Sakurada in view of Reaser discloses the method of claim 1.
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Umeda discloses wherein the user information comprises at least one of group information of the user and grade information of the user, and wherein the determining the return information of the moving object comprises determining the return zone of the moving object based on at least one of the group information of the user and the grade information of the user (Umeda: ¶0029-0033: A return zone for a shared vehicle is determined based on group information of users, such as the number of premium and regular grade users respectfully. The information indicating regular and premium members is used to determine priorities and privileges for the return zones.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Sakurada in view of Umeda’s information sharing system for car sharing between users because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for car-sharing and determining parking stations, and because incorporating Umeda’s information sharing system for car sharing between users in Sakurada would have served Sakurada’s pursuit of effectively managing use reservation in a car-sharing system for vehicles (See Sakurada, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 5, Sakurada in view of Reaser in further view of Umeda discloses the method of claim 4.
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Umeda discloses wherein the determining the return information of the moving object comprises comparing at least one of group information of the user and the grade information of the user for a current user with group information of the user and grade information of the user for a subsequent user; and determining the return zone of the moving object based on a result of comparison (Umeda: ¶0029: When determining a return spot for the returned vehicle, the acquisition unit may determine a spot where the grades of the subsequent users are high. See ¶0031 where a user with a higher grade (e.g., premium member) has priority over those with a lower grade (e.g., a regular member). The group information identifies groups of members designated to be premium or regular.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine Sakurada in view of Umeda’s information sharing system for car sharing between users because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for car-sharing and determining parking stations, and because incorporating Umeda’s information sharing system for car sharing between users in Sakurada would have served Sakurada’s pursuit of effectively managing use reservation in a car-sharing system for vehicles (See Sakurada, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, Sakurada in view of Reaser in further view of Umeda discloses the method of claim 5.
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Umeda discloses wherein the determining the return information of the moving object comprises checking whether priority assignment to a subsequent user is requested (Umeda: ¶0029: When determining a return spot for the returned vehicle, the acquisition unit may determine a spot where the grades of the subsequent users are high. See ¶0031 where a user with a higher grade (e.g., premium member) has priority over those with a lower grade (e.g., a regular member).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine Sakurada in view of Umeda’s information sharing system for car sharing between users because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for car-sharing and determining parking stations, and because incorporating Umeda’s information sharing system for car sharing between users in Sakurada would have served Sakurada’s pursuit of effectively managing use reservation in a car-sharing system for vehicles (See Sakurada, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 9, Sakurada in view of Reaser in further view of Umeda discloses the method of claim 8.
Sakurada does not explicitly disclose; however, Umeda discloses wherein the checking w