Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office action is responsive to the amendment and reply filed on April 28, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 9, 19, and 20 are now amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending in the application, with claims 10, 11, and 15–18 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1–9, 12–14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention remains directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The newly claimed invention has been considered, together with the Applicant’s comments, but is ultimately found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more, for the reasons set forth in the rejection below.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn, in view of the amendment resolving the scope of the claimed invention. A new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is now set forth below, in light of new matter added to the claims by the amendment.
All grounds of rejection based on prior art are hereby withdrawn, because, much like the Applicant’s own written description, the prior art does not disclose the invention that is currently claimed. The Applicant is advised that no inferences regarding allowability should be drawn from the lack of a prior art rejection, because it is possible (and even likely) that removing the new matter from the claims may result in a broader invention that once again captures what the prior art discloses.
In any case, because all of the claims stand rejected, this application is not currently in condition for allowance. (Cf. Response 13).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1–9, 12–14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The Office applies a four-part test when examining claims for subject-matter eligibility under § 101. First, the claimed invention must be directed to one of the four statutory categories explicitly listed in § 101 (Step 1). MPEP § 2106(I.). Then, the claimed invention is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to one of § 101’s judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong One) without reciting both a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A Prong Two) and significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). MPEP § 2106(I.).
With this framework in mind, the claims will now be analyzed for subject matter eligibility under § 101.
Claim 1
Step 1. Claim 1 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 1 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning the micro mobility device; checking a possibility of returning the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information; moving the movable carrier to an access location based on the access location information, in response to the possibility of returning; transmitting, to a user device, the access location information of the movable carrier which is used to return the micro mobility device, whereby the micro mobility device is moved to the access location and loaded on the movable carrier by a user of the user device; performing maintenance on the micro mobility device based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier; and transmitting, to the user device, a permission message for replacement of the micro mobility device with another mobility device loaded on the movable carrier, based on the micro mobility device being returned to the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “autonomously” moving the movable carrier, “in an unmanned manner.” (To be clear, the additional element is not the entire step of arranging for the movable carrier to be in the correct location, but rather, the additional limitation of that arrangement occurring “autonomously” and “in an unmanned manner.”).
This additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it adds nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Autonomously moving the carrier is both nominally and tangentially related to the invention, which is a method for managing and efficiently using a micro mobility device by performing timely maintenance on the micro mobility device.
Step 2B. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “autonomously” moving the movable carrier, “in an unmanned manner.” (To be clear, the additional element is not the entire step of arranging for the movable carrier to be in the correct location, but rather, the additional limitation of that arrangement occurring “autonomously” and “in an unmanned manner.”). This additional limitation fails to add “significantly more” to the claimed invention for two reasons.
First, the broad recitation of autonomous driving—with absolutely no limitations on how the autonomous driving is performed, and with what hardware—is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The evidence for this finding is as follows: in paragraph [0044] of the specification, the Applicant warns that “well-known functions or constructions are not described in detail since they may unnecessarily obscure the understanding of the present disclosure.” Following that disclaimer, every mention of autonomous driving merely repeats the word “autonomous,” without providing any detail whatsoever about how the autonomous driving is performed, or what control algorithms or even sensors are involved. Nothing is mentioned beyond the broad naming of the subject matter itself. See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 35, 84, 86, 87, 108, 115, 121, 144, 148, 150, and 180.
Second, this broad recitation of autonomous driving also fails to add significantly more because it is a description of insignificant extra-solution activity. Autonomously moving the carrier is both nominally and tangentially related to the invention, which is a method for managing and efficiently using a micro mobility device by performing timely maintenance on the micro mobility device. Additionally, the extra-solution limitation is well-known, based on the evidence given above.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for failing to claim significantly more than a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Step 1. Claim 2 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 2 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning the micro mobility device; checking a possibility of returning the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information; moving the movable carrier to an access location based on the access location information, in response to the possibility of returning; transmitting, to a user device, the access location information of the movable carrier which is used to return the micro mobility device, whereby the micro mobility device is moved to the access location and loaded on the movable carrier by a user of the user device; performing maintenance on the micro mobility device based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier; and transmitting, to the user device, a permission message for replacement of the micro mobility device with another mobility device loaded on the movable carrier, based on the micro mobility device being returned to the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 2 recites the additional element of “autonomously” moving the movable carrier, “in an unmanned manner.” (To be clear, the additional element is not the entire step of arranging for the movable carrier to be in the correct location, but rather, the additional limitation of that arrangement occurring “autonomously” and “in an unmanned manner.”).
This additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it adds nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Autonomously moving the carrier is both nominally and tangentially related to the invention, which is a method for managing and efficiently using a micro mobility device by performing timely maintenance on the micro mobility device.
Step 2B. Claim 2 recites the additional element of “autonomously” moving the movable carrier, “in an unmanned manner.” (To be clear, the additional element is not the entire step of arranging for the movable carrier to be in the correct location, but rather, the additional limitation of that arrangement occurring “autonomously” and “in an unmanned manner.”). This additional limitation fails to add “significantly more” to the claimed invention for two reasons.
First, the broad recitation of autonomous driving—with absolutely no limitations on how the autonomous driving is performed, and with what hardware—is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The evidence for this finding is as follows: in paragraph [0044] of the specification, the Applicant warns that “well-known functions or constructions are not described in detail since they may unnecessarily obscure the understanding of the present disclosure.” Following that disclaimer, every mention of autonomous driving merely repeats the word “autonomous,” without providing any detail whatsoever about how the autonomous driving is performed, or what control algorithms or even sensors are involved. Nothing is mentioned beyond the broad naming of the subject matter itself. See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 35, 84, 86, 87, 108, 115, 121, 144, 148, 150, and 180.
Second, this broad recitation of autonomous driving also fails to add significantly more because it is a description of insignificant extra-solution activity. Autonomously moving the carrier is both nominally and tangentially related to the invention, which is a method for managing and efficiently using a micro mobility device by performing timely maintenance on the micro mobility device. Additionally, the extra-solution limitation is well-known, based on the evidence given above.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for failing to claim significantly more than a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 3 and 4
The findings from claim 1 are hereby reincorporated by reference. In addition to claim 1, claims 3 and 4 specify that the movable carrier is “capable of” driving to a management area, and what happens “when” located outside the management area.
Neither of these claim elements add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception identified for claim 1 because each claim recites operations that are optional to the method. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed,” and furthermore, “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04.
In this case, claims 3 and 4 say what the movable carrier is capable of doing, and what the movable carrier would do if but do not actually require the movable carrier to perform any of those tasks. In other words, there is never an affirmatively recited step of “autonomously driving within a management area that is set to a predetermined range from a multimodal station which is installed in a fixed location.”
Accordingly, claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as their parent claim.
Claim 5
Step 1. Claim 5 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 5 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device, checking whether or not it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on residual power information of the micro mobility device and mobility device location information, and the access location information, and deciding to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 5 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 5 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Claim 6
Step 1. Claim 6 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 6 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device, checking whether or not it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information, and deciding whether or not to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier (or when maintenance for charging is impossible to perform, if not proceeding with the maintenance).
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 6 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 6 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Claim 7
Step 1. Claim 7 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 7 is directed to the mental process of searching for a movable carrier based on at least one among location information of the micro mobility device, mobility device loading information of the movable carrier, and/or the maintenance support information, obtaining access location information of the movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device, checking whether or not it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information, and deciding to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 7 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 7 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Claim 8
Step 1. Claim 8 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 8 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device, checking whether or not it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information, and deciding to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 8 further provides the additional elements of (1) actually performing the maintenance, and (2) recording the use information in at least one of a user identification device, which is mounted on a user device and is capable of exchanging data with the micro mobility device; a mobility identification device mounted on the micro mobility device; and an authentication identification device applicable to the micro mobility device for user authentication, and transmitting the same to a user device or a server.
Additional element (1) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Additional element (2) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application either, because data storage and transmission are among the fundamental elements of a general purpose computer, and consequently, amount to nothing more than a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Looking at both additional elements together, the activities they recite are insignificant relative to the balance of the claimed abstract idea, and therefore, they do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application when taken as a whole, either.
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 8 further provides the additional elements of (1) actually performing the maintenance, and (2) recording the use information in at least one of a user identification device, which is mounted on a user device and is capable of exchanging data with the micro mobility device; a mobility identification device mounted on the micro mobility device; and an authentication identification device applicable to the micro mobility device for user authentication, and transmitting the same to a user device or a server.
Additional element (1) does not add “significantly more” to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Additional element (2) does not add “significantly more” to the judicial exception either, because data storage and transmission are among the fundamental elements of a general purpose computer, and consequently, amount to nothing more than a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 9
Steps 1 and 2A, Prong One. The findings from the rejection of claim 1 are hereby reincorporated by reference. The elements that claim 9 adds to claim 1 are a second mental process and/or method of organizing human activity, i.e., conditioning whether or not a customer is allowed to receive a new rental vehicle based on whether or not he has returned his current rental vehicle as collateral.
A claim to a combination of two or more abstract ideas is still directed to a judicial exception, i.e., the answer to Step 2A Prong One is still “Yes.” See MPEP § 2106.04 (subsection (Ⅱ.)(B.)).
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 9 further provides the additional element of transmitting messages that are representative of the abstract idea (that is, they inform the respective devices of whether or not the rental vehicle has been returned, so that the abstract idea may be carried out).
The existence of the messages to carry out the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it amounts to the bare minimum data gathering and outputting necessary to perform the abstract idea. As a whole, both elements simply invoke computers merely as a tool to perform the existing process, and thus, their combination does not result in a practical application of the judicial exception.
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 9 further provides the additional element of transmitting messages that are representative of the abstract idea (that is, they inform the respective devices of whether or not the rental vehicle has been returned, so that the abstract idea may be carried out).
The existence of the messages to carry out the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it amounts to the bare minimum data gathering and outputting necessary to perform the abstract idea. As a whole, both elements simply invoke computers merely as a tool to perform the existing process, and thus, their combination does not result in a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim 12
Step 1. Claim 12 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 12 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device, determining whether or not use of the micro mobility device is restricted, based on the use information related to a usage state and operation of the micro mobility device, and when use is restricted, checking whether or not it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information, and deciding to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 12 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 12 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Claim 13
Step 1. Claim 13 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 13 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device; determining whether or not use of the micro mobility device is restricted, based on the residual power information of the micro mobility device, mobility device location information, and operation of the micro mobility device; and when residual power is equal to or less than a first residual value, determining whether or not the return is possible based on the power residual information, the mobility device location information, and the access location information, and deciding to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 13 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 13 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Claim 14
Step 1. Claim 14 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 14 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning a micro mobility device; determining whether or not use of the micro mobility device is restricted, based on the residual power information of the micro mobility device, mobility device location information, and an operational state of the micro mobility device; and when a preset defect level is reached, based on the operational state of the micro mobility device, determining whether or not the return is possible based on the power residual information, the mobility device location information, and the access location information, and deciding to proceed with performing “maintenance” on the micro mobility device that is returned, when it is possible to return the micro mobility device to the movable carrier and it is confirmed, based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier, that maintenance of the micro mobility device is capable of being performed by the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 14 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Step 2B. In addition to deciding to proceed with performing the maintenance on the micro-mobility device, claim 14 further provides the additional element of actually performing the maintenance. However, this additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception, because “performing maintenance” is so broadly recited as to avoid any meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method step. “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Claim 19
Step 1. Claim 19 provides for a computing device programmed to execute several steps of a method, and is thus a “machine” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. Nevertheless, claim 19 is directed to the mental process of obtaining access location information of a movable carrier for returning the micro mobility device; checking a possibility of returning the micro mobility device to the movable carrier, based on use information of the micro mobility device and the access location information; moving the movable carrier to an access location based on the access location information, in response to the possibility of returning; transmitting, to a user device, the access location information of the movable carrier which is used to return the micro mobility device, whereby the micro mobility device is moved to the access location and loaded on the movable carrier by a user of the user device; performing maintenance on the micro mobility device based on the use information and maintenance support information of the movable carrier; and transmitting, to the user device, a permission message for replacement of the micro mobility device with another mobility device loaded on the movable carrier, based on the micro mobility device being returned to the movable carrier.
Mental processes are a type of abstract idea, and abstract ideas are a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 19 recites the additional element of “autonomously” moving the movable carrier, “in an unmanned manner.” (To be clear, the additional element is not the entire step of arranging for the movable carrier to be in the correct location, but rather, the additional limitation of that arrangement occurring “autonomously” and “in an unmanned manner.”).
This additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it adds nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Autonomously moving the carrier is both nominally and tangentially related to the invention, which is a method for managing and efficiently using a micro mobility device by performing timely maintenance on the micro mobility device.
The transceiver and the processor are considered additional elements as well, but they represent the fundamental building blocks of a general-purpose computer, and therefore, when considered both individually and as a whole, are tantamount to a bare instruction to apply the judicial exception to a general-purpose computer. As such, they fail to transform the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B. Claim 19 recites the additional element of “autonomously” moving the movable carrier, “in an unmanned manner.” (To be clear, the additional element is not the entire step of arranging for the movable carrier to be in the correct location, but rather, the additional limitation of that arrangement occurring “autonomously” and “in an unmanned manner.”). This additional limitation fails to add “significantly more” to the claimed invention for two reasons.
First, the broad recitation of autonomous driving—with absolutely no limitations on how the autonomous driving is performed, and with what hardware—is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The evidence for this finding is as follows: in paragraph [0044] of the specification, the Applicant warns that “well-known functions or constructions are not described in detail since they may unnecessarily obscure the understanding of the present disclosure.” Following that disclaimer, every mention of autonomous driving merely repeats the word “autonomous,” without providing any detail whatsoever about how the autonomous driving is performed, or what control algorithms or even sensors are involved. Nothing is mentioned beyond the broad naming of the subject matter itself. See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 35, 84, 86, 87, 108, 115, 121, 144, 148, 150, and 180.
Second, this broad recitation of autonomous driving also fails to add significantly more because it is a description of insignificant extra-solution activity. Autonomously moving the carrier is both nominally and tangentially related to the invention, which is a method for managing and efficiently using a micro mobility device by performing timely maintenance on the micro mobility device. Additionally, the extra-solution limitation is well-known, based on the evidence given above.
The transceiver and the processor are considered additional elements as well, but they represent the fundamental building blocks of a general-purpose computer, and therefore, when considered both individually and as a whole, are tantamount to a bare instruction to apply the judicial exception to a general-purpose computer. As such, they fail to transform the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for failing to claim significantly more than a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as given above for claim 19, as the server comprises similar hardware as the computing device.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
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 19 and 20 are 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.
In the April 28, 2026 amendment, the Applicant attempted to narrow the scope of the server of claim 20, such that rather than merely controlling the movable carrier to move to an access location, the server now autonomously drives the movable carrier itself.
The Written Description does not disclose a server with a processor that is configured to “autonomously drive the movable carrier.” At best, the server may command the movable carrier to engage its own autonomous driving function, provide an overall route to the access location to the movable carrier, and/or tell it how long to wait there, see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 108, 121, and 191, but, only the movable carrier itself implements the actual function of autonomous driving. See Spec. ¶¶ 8 and 9.
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for reciting new matter.
Claim 19 recites the same new matter as claim 20, except that claim 19 is directed to a computing device rather than the server. Since the “computing device” could include computing devices other than those actually installed on the movable carrier, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 says that the movable carrier has an autonomous driving function, but parent claim 1 already requires the movable carrier to “autonomously mov[e] . . . in an unmanned manner,” which, by definition, is an autonomous driving function.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights