DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amended claims filed on August 14, 2025, the following has occurred: Claim 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, and 21 have been amended; Claims 4, 14, and 20 have been canceled; claims 22-24 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Priority
The present application claims a National Stage Entry of PCT/CN2020/142054, filed on December 31, 2020 and claims priority to Chinese Application CN202010105951.0, filed on February 20, 2020.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 9-13, 15, and 23 are directed to another method (i.e., a process), and claims 16, 18, 19, 21, and 24 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1 and 16 are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 16 is
receiving a vehicle rental request, wherein the vehicle rental request is at least indicative of a pickup location and a rental time of a user;
determining whether there exists a vehicle to-be-rented matched with the vehicle rental request at a rental outlet in response to determining that there is no vehicle to-be-rented matched with the vehicle rental request at the pickup location, wherein the rental outlet is pre-selected by the user or determined based on a predetermined range from the pickup location;
determining the vehicle to-be-rented at the rental outlet as a rented vehicle in response to determining that there is the vehicle to-be-rented at the rental outlet; and
sending a task of vehicle delivery to the rental outlet, wherein the task is indicative of a location of the rented vehicle, the pickup location, and the rental time, such that the rented vehicle in a ready state can be driven by an associated user to the pickup location.
Receiving a request for a key of the rented vehicle, wherein the request for the key of the rented vehicle comprises validation information;
Sending the key of the rented vehicle in response to determining that verification of the validation information passes;
Sending the key of the rented vehicle to a user in response to determining that the rented vehicle has arrived a the pickup location; and
invalidating the key of the rented vehicle sent to the user in response to determining that a request of vehicle return for the vehicle rental is detected
The abstract idea recited in claim 9 is
obtaining a task of at least one of vehicle delivery and vehicle equipment, wherein the task is indicative of a current location of a rented vehicle, a state of the rented vehicle, a pickup location, and information of a user renting the vehicle;
determining a correlation between the current location of the rented vehicle and a rental outlet associated with the electronic device;
determining whether the state of the rented vehicle is a ready state;
sending a request for a route to the pickup location, wherein the request is used for an associated user to drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location; and
sending to the user a message indicating that the rented vehicle has arrived in response to determining that the rented vehicle arrives at the pickup location;
Determining whether a first distance from the return location to a next pickup location indicated by a next task of vehicle delivery is less than or equal to a second distance from the rental outlet to the next pickup location, in response to determining that the next task of vehicle delivery of the returned rented vehicle is detected; and
Determining a third route of driving the returned vehicle to the next pickup location based on the returned location and the next pickup location in response to determining that the first distance is less than or equal to the second distance.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing vehicle rental.
The limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (steps [A], [D]-[G], [I], [L], and [M]) and analyzing the information (steps [B], [C], [H], [J], [K], [N], and [O]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations [A]-[O] above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors for vehicle rental service; and interactions between people (e.g., customer and vehicle manager) for following rules or instructions of delivering vehicle for customer to pick up vehicle for rental and then charge a fee. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of customer requesting vehicle for rental and in response rental outlet employee delivering a rental vehicle to provide the rental service to the customer for a rental fee. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing a service of vehicle rental, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “performed by a server,” “electronic device,” “user equipment,”
Claim 9: “electronic device,”
Claim 16: “Server,” “electronic device, comprising: a memory configured to store one or more computer programs; and a processor coupled with the memory and configured to execute the one or more programs to cause the electronic device,” “an electronic device associated with the rental outlet”, and “user equipment”.
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, determine, send, invalidate information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [30] and [80]-[87] and Fig. 8 describing the electronic device and user equipment are generic computer such as mobile device and components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[O] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations of [A]-[O] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for managing vehicle rental. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 10-13, 18, 19, and 21-24 further recite additional abstract steps of receiving, sending, determining, invalidating, and calculating information and establishing connection, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The same additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 8 and 15 further recite additional descriptive information regarding to the vehicle rental request and control authority information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 22-24 further recite additional descriptive information regarding to the rental time is determined by the user equipment, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional element of the user equipment is generic recited such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 9-11, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk et al. (US 20170091856 A1).
Claim 9, Canberk discloses a method for vehicle rental (para. [0022]-[0023] method for vehicle rental and vehicle delivery) performed by an electronic device (para. [0022]-[0023], executed by the smartphone), comprising:
obtaining at an electronic device, a task of at least one of vehicle delivery and vehicle equipment, wherein the task is indicative of a current location of a rented vehicle, a state of the rented vehicle, a pickup location, and information of a user renting the vehicle (Fig. 6, box 608 and para. [0053], [0067], [0083], and [0088]-[0089], server sends a message to a third party provider, e.g., an employee (i.e., associated user) the location of the vehicle and dispatch to the location of next destination for next user for another rental reservation, ready to be used);
determining a correlation between the current location of the rented vehicle and a rental outlet associated with the electronic device (para. [0063] and [0066] disclosing the determining the distance and route between the location of the rented vehicle to the pickup location (i.e., rental outlet associated with the electronic device);
determining whether the state of the rented vehicle is a ready state (para. [0066]-[0068] disclosing vehicle delivery application allows the user to manage vehicle damage inspection, refueled/recharged, washed, and make adjustments to user preferences then sign contract for receipt of confirming the vehicle is at pickup location in ready state);
sending a request for a route to the pickup location, wherein the request is used for an associated user of the electronic device to drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location (para. [0063] and [0066] disclosing sending the message including information of route and traffic to pickup location of the request user); and
sending to the user a message indicating that the rented vehicle has arrived in response to determining that the rented vehicle arrives at the pickup location (para. [0066]-[0068] including confirmation of vehicle has arrived at the pickup location).
determining whether a first distance from the return location to a next pickup location indicated by a next task of vehicle delivery is less than or equal to a second distance from the rental outlet to the next pickup location, in response to determining that the next task of vehicle delivery of the returned rented vehicle is detected; and determining a third route of driving the returned rented vehicle to the next pickup location based on the return location and the next pickup location in response to determining that the first distance is less than or equal to the second distance (para. [0037], [0068]-[0069], [0082]-[0083], and claims 8 and 16 disclosing determining the most cost effective vehicle based on factors of vehicle location tracking and delivery time). Canberk teaches the logistical principle of the recited claim. It would have been obvious in the vehicle rental field to teachings of deciding where a returned vehicle should go based on an upcoming delivery, the system (via the provider's electronic device) would naturally compare the routes (i.e., distances and times). It would compare the route from the vehicle's current drop-off location to the next customer against the route from the rental outlet to that same customer. If the direct route is more efficient (i.e., the first distance is less than the second), the system would generate that "third route" and dispatch the provider accordingly.
Claim 10, Canberk makes obvious of the method of claim 9. Canberk further discloses,
sending a request to obtain information of a route from a current location of the electronic device to the current location of the rented vehicle and information of a route from the current location of the rented vehicle to the pickup location, in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not located at the rental outlet, to enable the associated user to arrive at the current location of the rented vehicle and drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location, wherein the ready state is used to determine whether the rented vehicle needs to be equipped at a time of vehicle delivery (para. [0066]-[0068] disclosing sending message including the route of origin location (i.e., rental outlet) to destination (i.e., pickup location) and the vehicle is ready to drive at the pickup location after inspection. Para. [0066], Canberk states that the server sends a delivery message to a provider at an appropriate time, allowing the provider enough time for delivery based on factors including “whether the vehicle 110 may have to be refueled/recharged, washed, and/or inspected for other reasons.” Canberk discloses the vehicle is ready and equiped with fuel and clean features. The claim recites the performance of steps subject to the condition precedent “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is located at the rental outlet” and “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not located at the rental outlet,” given the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ex Parte Schulhasuer, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). As such, the claimed steps subject to condition precedent need not be given patentable weight. Consequently, “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is located at the rental outlet” and “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not located at the rental outlet,” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. The sending information of a route from the associated user to a current location of the rented vehicle and information of a route from the current location of the rented vehicle to the pickup location, and enable the associated user to arrive at the current location of the rented vehicle and drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location can be performed regardless if the condition of rental vehicle is located at the rental outlet or not).
Claim 11, Canberk makes obvious of the method of claim 9. Canberk further discloses,
sending a request for a virtual key of the rented vehicle to a server (para. [0067] disclosing the receiving of keyless entry to rented vehicle using client computing device. The office asserts, in order for the system to send the virtual key (i.e., keyless entry) to the client computing device of the user or third party provider, a request for the virtual is performed), wherein the request for the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises validation information (para. [0061], “The vehicle delivery application 108B additionally includes an identity verification module 310 to verify the identity of users including renters and third party providers that deliver vehicles 110 and pick up vehicles 110.”);
receiving the virtual key from the server (para. [0067] receiving keyless entry (i.e., virtual key) of the vehicle to the third party provide may access the vehicle using the client computing device); and
establishing a connection with the rented vehicle based on the virtual key to control the rented vehicle, in response to determining that a distance from the electronic device to the rented vehicle is less than or equal to a preset distance (para. [0067]-[[068] disclosing tracking and based on the location of the user within particular distance to the location of the reservation, providing keyless entry to the user to access (i.e., virtual key to control) the vehicle using the client computing device).
Claim 13, Canberk makes obvious of the method of claim 9. Canberk further discloses,
obtaining a task of vehicle return from a server, wherein the task of vehicle return is indicative of a return location of the rented vehicle (para. [0068] disclosing vehicle return request including receiving a message (i.e., task) to return the vehicle to a particular parking location or upcoming reservation location for another user, which is representative of return location of the rented vehicle);
determining a first route of arriving at the return location based on a current location of the electronic device and the return location (para. [0068] disclosing determining route for the vehicle to travel to a particular parking location)
determining whether the rented vehicle has arrived at the return location (para. [0069] disclosing determining the vehicle has arrived at the vehicle return location, e.g., the particular parking location); and
determining a second route of driving the returned rented vehicle to the rental outlet based on the current location of the electronic device and the rental outlet, in response to determining that the vehicle has arrived at the return location (para. [0068] disclosing the determining of a second route based on the vehicle current location to next upcoming reservation (i.e., rental outlet) is within the particular distance for next user reservation).
Claim 23, Canberk makes obvious of the method of claim 9. Canberk further discloses, wherein the rental time is determined by the user equipment based on at least one of: a user voice recognized by the user equipment, a stored schedule arrangement of the user, or travel information of the user (para. [0027], “reservation information is sent to the provider or individual and the provider or the individual may arrange delivery of the vehicle to the rental location at the time requested by the user.” In para. [0028], “reservation period may be modified/extended using the vehicle delivery application. The user may select a delivery location, a time period for the reservation”. Abstract: “vehicle reservation request comprising a vehicle delivery location, a start time, an end time, and a vehicle type from a mobile computing device”. The reservation information for a time period requested and delivery location is representative of a stored schedule arrangement of the user and travel information).
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk et al. (US 20170091856 A1) in view of Sham (US 20200193344 A1).
Claims 1 and 16, Canberk discloses a method for vehicle rental (para. [0022]-[0023] method for vehicle rental and vehicle delivery), performed by a server (Figs. 1, 3 and para. [0029]-[0030], server), comprising:
a memory configured to store one or more computer programs (para. [0035] and [0042]); and
a processor coupled with the memory and configured to execute the one or more programs to cause the electronic device to (para. [0035] and [0055]):
receiving a vehicle rental request (para. [0023] user, e.g., a renter requests a vehicle using the client application executed by the smartphone), wherein the vehicle rental request is at least indicative of a pickup location and a rental time of a user (para. [0023] dispatches the vehicle to a location associated with the user smartphone. In para. [0027], “reservation information is sent to the provider or individual and the provider or the individual may arrange delivery of the vehicle to the rental location at the time requested by the user.” In para. [0028], “reservation period may be modified/extended using the vehicle delivery application. The user may select a delivery location, a time period for the reservation”);
determining whether there exists a vehicle to-be-rented matched with the vehicle rental request at a rental outlet in response to determining that there is no vehicle to-be-rented matched with the vehicle rental request at the pickup location, wherein the rental outlet is pre-selected by the user or determined based on a predetermined range from the pickup location (para. [0065] and [0068] disclosing determining most suitable vehicle available to user request to the location for the vehicle delivery (e.g., a location of the request location (destination), which describes the rental outlet of predetermined range from the pickup location. Also, in para. [0065], “vehicle delivery module 314 may first attempt to provide the requested vehicle type unless there are no available vehicles having the requested vehicle type. In that case, the vehicle delivery module 314 may select a next most suitable vehicle based on the factors provided above.” disclosing the in response to determining that there is no vehicle to-be-rented matched with the vehicle rental request at the pickup location, proceed to determine next suitable vehicle available/exist for the vehicle rental request);
determining the vehicle to-be-rented at the rental outlet as a rented vehicle in response to determining that there is the vehicle to-be-rented at the rental outlet (para. [0050] and [0065]-[0066] disclosing the determining the most suitable vehicle may be sourced for delivery to the user to arrive at the location as requested by the user); and
sending a task of vehicle delivery to an electronic device associated with the rental outlet, wherein the task is indicative of a location of the rented vehicle, the pickup location, and the rental time, such that the rented vehicle in a ready state can be driven by an associated user of the electronic device to the pickup location (Fig. 6, box 608 and para. [0053], [0067], [0083], and [0088]-[0089], server sends a message to a third party provider, e.g., an employee (i.e., associated user) the location of the vehicle and dispatch to the location of next destination for next user for another rental reservation, ready to be used);
receiving a request for a virtual key of the rented vehicle from the electronic device (para. [0067] disclosing the receiving of keyless entry to rented vehicle using client computing device. The office asserts, in order for the system to send the virtual key (i.e., keyless entry) to the client computing device of the user or third party provider, a request for the virtual is performed), wherein the request for the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises validation information (para. [0061], “The vehicle delivery application 108B additionally includes an identity verification module 310 to verify the identity of users including renters and third party providers that deliver vehicles 110 and pick up vehicles 110.”);
sending the virtual key of the rented vehicle to the electronic device in response to determining that verification of the validation information passes (para. [0067] sending keyless entry (i.e., virtual key) of the vehicle to the third party provide may access the vehicle using the client computing device).
However, Canberk fails to expressly teach:
sending the virtual key of the rental vehicle to a user equipment of the user in response to determining that the rented vehicle has arrived at the pickup location; and
invalidating the virtual key of the rented vehicle sent to the user in response to determining that a request of vehicle return for the vehicle rental is detected.
Nonetheless, Sham is directed to a similar vehicle rental service for contactless car sharing, which specifically teaches,
sending the virtual key of the rented vehicle to a user equipment of the user in response to determining that the rented vehicle has arrived at the pickup location (para. [0044], [0058]-[0059] teaching the sending of secret token key that can open and start vehicle to be granted and transmitted to the user device at the requested pickup location); and
invalidating the virtual key of the rented vehicle sent to the user in response to determining that a request of vehicle return for the vehicle rental is detected (para. [0044] and claim 16 teaches the when and duration of the secret token key can be used and invalidate to be used by the next person).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the vehicle rental service system and method of Canberk to include the feature of sending the virtual key of the rented vehicle to a user equipment of the user in response to determining that the rented vehicle has arrived at the pickup location; and invalidating the virtual key of the rented vehicle sent to the user in response to determining that a request of vehicle return for the vehicle rental is detected as taught by Sham for the motivation and benefit of reducing employee staff required to manual and personally handing keys of the vehicle to the next user of the vehicle and prevent the potentially losing the key in the transition. This eventually reduces the burden on the user at the pickup location without security (benefit is described in para. [0019] of Sham).
Claims 2 and 18, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 1 and the electronic device of claim 16. Canberk further discloses,
determining a vehicle to-be-rented at the pickup location as the rented vehicle in response to determining that there is the vehicle to-be-rented at the pickup location; determining whether the rented vehicle is in the ready state; generating a response on the rented vehicle to send to the user in response to determining that the rented vehicle is in the ready state, wherein the ready state is used to determine whether the rented vehicle needs to be equipped at a time of vehicle delivery, wherein the response is indicative of the rented vehicle at the pickup location (para. [0065], “Upon receipt of the request and until the start date/time, the vehicle delivery module 314 may continue to determine a most suitable vehicle for the vehicle request based on a current status of the plurality of vehicles 110 including... a location for the vehicle delivery... [and] locations of available vehicles (origins)...” which the determination is based on variety of factors including the location of available vehicles (origins)” and the “vehicle delivery location” (i.e., the pickup location). In para. [0066], Canberk states that the server sends a delivery message to a provider at an appropriate time, allowing the provider enough time for delivery based on factors including “whether the vehicle 110 may have to be refueled/recharged, washed, and/or inspected for other reasons.” The fueled, washed, and inspected are “ready state” on whether the condition of the vehicle is ready to be used at the time of the vehicle delivery. In para. [0067]-[0068] disclosing the determining and tracking of location of the vehicle delivered to the requested location and allowing the user to sign contract for receipt of confirming vehicle pickup at location); and
generating a task of vehicle equipment in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not in the ready state (para. [0066]-[0068] disclosing the vehicle delivery application allows the user to manage vehicle damage inspection, refueled/recharged, washed, and make adjustments to user preferences (i.e., task) which discloses the generating of task of the vehicle equipment in response to the determining of the rented vehicle is not in the ready state).
Claims 3 and 19, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 1 and the electronic device of claim 16. Canberk further discloses,
sending information of a route to at least one of the pickup location, the location of the rented vehicle (para. [0066]), and a return location to the associated user of the electronic device (para. [0066]-[0068]), for the associated user to perform at least one of:
arriving at the location of the rented vehicle; driving the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location; and driving the returned rented vehicle to the rental outlet or to a pickup location indicated by a next task of vehicle delivery (para. [0066]-[0068]).
Claim 5, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 1. Canberk further discloses,
obtaining fuel volume detection data of the rented vehicle at the rental time in response to determining that the rented vehicle has arrived at the pickup location (abstract, para. [0052], [0053], [0066]-[0069], [0075], and [0082]-[0083] disclosing the obtaining the fuel/energy level of the vehicle at the rental time arrived at the pickup location).
Claim 7, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 3. Canberk further discloses,
wherein sending the information of a route to at least one of the pickup location, the location of the rented vehicle (para. [0066]-[0068]), and the return location comprises:
sending the information of a route from the rental outlet to the pickup location in response to determining that the rented vehicle is located at the rental outlet, to enable the associated user to drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location (para. [0066]-[0068] disclosing sending message including the route of origin location (i.e., rental outlet) to destination (i.e., pickup location) and the vehicle is ready to drive at the pickup location after inspection); and
sending information of a route from the associated user to a current location of the rented vehicle and information of a route from the current location of the rented vehicle to the pickup location, in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not located at the rental outlet, to enable the associated user to arrive at the current location of the rented vehicle and drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location (para. [0066]-[0068] disclosing sending message including the route of origin location (i.e., rental outlet) to destination (i.e., pickup location) and the vehicle is ready to drive at the pickup location after inspection. The claim recites the performance of steps subject to the condition precedent “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is located at the rental outlet” and “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not located at the rental outlet,” given the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ex Parte Schulhasuer, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). As such, the claimed steps subject to condition precedent need not be given patentable weight. Consequently, “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is located at the rental outlet” and “in response to determining that the rented vehicle is not located at the rental outlet,” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. The sending information of a route from the associated user to a current location of the rented vehicle and information of a route from the current location of the rented vehicle to the pickup location, and enable the associated user to arrive at the current location of the rented vehicle and drive the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location can be performed regardless if the condition of rental vehicle is located at the rental outlet or not).
Claim 8, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 7. Canberk further discloses,
wherein the vehicle rental request is further indicative of a vehicle type, and the vehicle type is determined by the user or based on historical rental information of the user (Abstract, para. [0049], and [0065] disclosing vehicle rental request includes vehicle type of vehicle reservations. And para. [0060] disclosing storing history information associated with each vehicle rental reservation and using history information to provide vehicle rental recommendations to users).
Claims 6 and 21, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 1 and the electronic device of claim 16, Canberk further discloses,
obtaining fuel volume detection data of the rented vehicle at a return time (para. [0086] and [0089] disclosing obtaining fuel/energy consumed during the rental);
obtaining a time and a route that the associated user uses to perform at least one of: arriving at the location of the rented vehicle; driving the rented vehicle in the ready state to the pickup location (para. [0066]-[0069]); and
driving the returned rented vehicle to the rental outlet or to a pickup location indicated by a next task of vehicle delivery (para. [0066]-[0067], [0088]-[0089] disclosing the vehicle is returned to a particular parking location (i.e., rental outlet) or sent to a next user for another rental reservation (i.e., next task of vehicle deliver); and
calculating a rental fee based on the time, the route, the fuel volume detection data at the rental time, and the fuel volume detection data at the return time (para. [0089], “determine final information regarding the rental of the vehicle and transmit the final information to the client computing device 102. The final information may include a duration of the rental, miles traveled during the rental, fuel/energy consumed during the rental, and a final price of the rental”).
However, Canberk does not expressly teach wherein control authority of the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises: starting/pulling off the rented vehicle, driving and controlling the rented vehicle, whistling, controlling an indicator light, opening/closing a vehicle door, and obtaining state information of the rented vehicle.
Nonetheless, Sham is directed to a similar vehicle rental service for contactless car sharing, which specifically teaches,
wherein control authority of the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises: starting/pulling off the rented vehicle, driving and controlling the rented vehicle, whistling, controlling an indicator light, opening/closing a vehicle door, and obtaining state information of the rented vehicle (para. [0044] and [0059], “grant may include information that can assist user device 108 to open the vehicle 102 and/or star[t] operating vehicle 102. Example of such information may include a secret token key that can open and start vehicle 102 for within a period of time (for example, within the next minute).” Para. [0015] teaching the vehicle may be a self-driving car capable of sensing its environment and moving with little or no human input. Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometer and inertial measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as obstacles and relevant signage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the vehicle rental service system and method of Canberk to include the feature of capable of sensing its environment and moving with little or no human input. Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometer and inertial measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as obstacles and relevant signage as taught by Sham for the motivation and benefit of reducing employee staff required to manual and personally handing keys of the vehicle to the next user of the vehicle and prevent the potentially losing the key in the transition. This eventually reduces the burden on the user at the pickup location without security (benefit is described in para. [0019] of Sham).
However, Canberk does not expressly teach wherein control authority of the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises: starting/pulling off the rented vehicle, driving and controlling the rented vehicle, whistling, controlling an indicator light, opening/closing a vehicle door, and obtaining state information of the rented vehicle.
Nonetheless, Sham is directed to a similar vehicle rental service for contactless car sharing, which specifically teaches,
wherein control authority of the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises: starting/pulling off the rented vehicle, driving and controlling the rented vehicle, whistling, controlling an indicator light, opening/closing a vehicle door, and obtaining state information of the rented vehicle (para. [0044] and [0059], “grant may include information that can assist user device 108 to open the vehicle 102 and/or star[t] operating vehicle 102. Example of such information may include a secret token key that can open and start vehicle 102 for within a period of time (for example, within the next minute).” Para. [0015] teaching the vehicle may be a self-driving car capable of sensing its environment and moving with little or no human input. Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometer and inertial measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as obstacles and relevant signage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the vehicle rental service system and method of Canberk to include the feature of capable of sensing its environment and moving with little or no human input. Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometer and inertial measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as obstacles and relevant signage as taught by Sham for the motivation and benefit of reducing employee staff required to manual and personally handing keys of the vehicle to the next user of the vehicle and prevent the potentially losing the key in the transition. This eventually reduces the burden on the user at the pickup location without security (benefit is described in para. [0019] of Sham).
Claim 12, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious ofthe method of claim 11. Canberk discloses sending a keyless entry to access the vehicle using client computing device (para. [0067]).
However, Canberk does not expressly teach sending a control token and a control command to the server, for the server to remotely control the rented vehicle.
Nonetheless, Sham is directed to a similar vehicle rental service for contactless car sharing, which specifically teaches,
sending a control token and a control command to the server, for the server to remotely control the rented vehicle (para. [0044] and [0059], “grant may include information that can assist user device 108 to open the vehicle 102 and/or star[t] operating vehicle 102. Example of such information may include a secret token key that can open and start vehicle 102 for within a period of time (for example, within the next minute).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the vehicle rental service system and method of Canberk to include the feature of sending a control token and a control command to the server, for the server to remotely control the rented vehicle as taught by Sham for the motivation and benefit of reducing employee staff required to manual and personally handing keys of the vehicle to the next user of the vehicle and prevent the potentially losing the key in the transition. This eventually reduces the burden on the user at the pickup location without security (benefit is described in para. [0019] of Sham).
Claim 15, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 11. Canberk discloses sending a keyless entry to access the vehicle using client computing device (para. [0067]).
However, Canberk does not expressly teach wherein control authority of the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises: starting/pulling off the rented vehicle, driving and controlling the rented vehicle, whistling, controlling an indicator light, opening/closing a vehicle door, and obtaining state information of the rented vehicle.
Nonetheless, Sham is directed to a similar vehicle rental service for contactless car sharing, which specifically teaches,
wherein control authority of the virtual key of the rented vehicle comprises: starting/pulling off the rented vehicle, driving and controlling the rented vehicle, whistling, controlling an indicator light, opening/closing a vehicle door, and obtaining state information of the rented vehicle (para. [0044] and [0059], “grant may include information that can assist user device 108 to open the vehicle 102 and/or star[t] operating vehicle 102. Example of such information may include a secret token key that can open and start vehicle 102 for within a period of time (for example, within the next minute).” Para. [0015] teaching the vehicle may be a self-driving car capable of sensing its environment and moving with little or no human input. Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometer and inertial measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as obstacles and relevant signage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the vehicle rental service system and method of Canberk to include the feature of capable of sensing its environment and moving with little or no human input. Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometer and inertial measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as obstacles and relevant signage as taught by Sham for the motivation and benefit of reducing employee staff required to manual and personally handing keys of the vehicle to the next user of the vehicle and prevent the potentially losing the key in the transition. This eventually reduces the burden on the user at the pickup location without security (benefit is described in para. [0019] of Sham).
Claims 22 and 24, the combination of Canberk and Sham make obvious of the method of claim 1 and the electronic device of claim 16. Canberk further discloses,
wherein the rental time is determined by the user equipment based on at least one of: a user voice recognized by the user equipment, a stored schedule arrangement of the user, or travel information of the user (para. [0027], “reservation information is sent to the provider or individual and the provider or the individual may arrange delivery of the vehicle to the rental location at the time requested by the user.” In para. [0028], “reservation period may be modified/extended using the vehicle delivery application. The user may select a delivery location, a time period for the reservation”. Abstract: “vehicle reservation request comprising a vehicle delivery location, a start time, an end time, and a vehicle type from a mobile computing device”. The reservation information for a time period requested and delivery location is representative of a stored schedule arrangment of the user and travel information).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however, the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Examiner’s suggestion: The claims can be eligible over the 101 rejection, if the Applicant amends the claims to include an active function of controlling an action of the vehicle and performed by the vehicle (e.g., starting the rental vehicle, opening a vehicle door, closing the vehicle door, etc.) as result of the transmitting and determining steps. If the claim only recites a where