Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on January 14, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 13, 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Claims 1–20 are pending in the application, with claims 10, 11, and 15–18 withdrawn from consideration.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
The objection to claim 1 is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the amendment correcting the informality.
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The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn, in view of the amendment resolving the scope of the claimed invention.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All grounds of rejection based on prior art are hereby withdrawn, because, much like the Applicant’s own written description, the prior art does not disclose the invention that is currently claimed.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 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, controlling the movable carrier to move to an access location based on the access location information, in response to the possibility of returning,1 controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier based on mobility device loading information,1 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, and transmitting messages to a user device depending on the status of the return.
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 does not include any additional elements that transform the judicial exception into a practical application, because each and every step of claim 1 merely involves sending and receiving information (e.g., control messages and status checks) to or from one of the three devices mentioned in this claim, including both “controlling the movable carrier to move to an access location based on the access location information,” and “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier based on mobility device loading information.” While these two “controlling” steps mention physical activity, the claimed method does not actually involve performing the physical activity, it merely involves controlling it. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “controlling” the movable carrier to move and “controlling” the movable carrier to load includes simply communicating a message instructing the movable carrier to perform those tasks, rather than actually doing them.
A concept that is performed in the human mind, but merely claimed “in a computer environment” or “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” recites a mental process for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 101. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (subsection (III.)(C.)). To the extent that the information in the claimed invention flows between and/or describes physical devices (including the server, the micro mobility device, the movable carrier, and the computing device), the reference to those devices in the data does not amount to more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, claim 1 fails to transform the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B. Claim 1 does not include any additional elements that transform the judicial exception into a practical application, because each and every step of claim 1 merely involves sending and receiving information (e.g., control messages and status checks) to or from one of the three devices mentioned in this claim, including both “controlling the movable carrier to move to an access location based on the access location information,” and “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier based on mobility device loading information.” While these two “controlling” steps mention physical activity, the claimed method does not actually involve performing the physical activity, it merely involves controlling it. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “controlling” the movable carrier to move and “controlling” the movable carrier to load includes simply communicating a message instructing the movable carrier to perform those tasks, rather than actually doing them.
A concept that is performed in the human mind, but merely claimed “in a computer environment” or “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” recites a mental process for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 101. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (subsection (III.)(C.)). To the extent that the information in the claimed invention flows between and/or describes physical devices (including the server, the micro mobility device, the movable carrier, and the computing device), the reference to those devices in the data does not amount to more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements of claim 1 fail to include significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as a whole.
Claims 2–4
The findings from claim 1 are hereby reincorporated by reference. In addition to claim 1, claims 2–4 specify that the movable carrier “has an autonomous function” and is “capable of” driving to a management area.
Neither of these claim elements add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception identified for claim 1 because each of claims 2–4 recite 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 2–4 say what the movable carrier is capable of doing, 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 2–4 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 elements of (1) actually performing the maintenance, and (2) 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).
Neither of these additional elements, considered both individually and as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding element (1), “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). Regarding element (2), 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 elements of (1) actually performing the maintenance, and (2) 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).
Neither of these additional elements, considered both individually and as a whole, provide “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Regarding element (1), “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). Regarding element (2), 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 add “significantly more” to 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 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, controlling the movable carrier to move to an access location based on the access location information, in response to the possibility of returning,2 controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier based on mobility device loading information,1 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, and transmitting messages to a user device depending on the status of the return.
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 does not recite any additional elements that transform the judicial exception into an eligible invention.
Much like the method of claim 1, the computing device of claim 19 does not move to the access location, load the micro mobility device, or perform any maintenance; it simply “controls” to perform each of those tasks—a limitation that is broad enough to include simply deciding or outputting a human-understandable instruction to a mechanic or employee.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “controlling” the movable carrier to move and “controlling” the movable carrier to load includes simply communicating a message instructing the movable carrier to perform those tasks, rather than actually doing them.
A concept that is performed in the human mind, but merely claimed “in a computer environment” or “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” recites a mental process for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 101. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (subsection (III.)(C.)). To the extent that the information in the claimed invention flows between and/or describes physical devices (including the server, the micro mobility device, the movable carrier, and the computing device), the reference to those devices in the data does not amount to more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, claim 19 fails to transform the judicial exception into a practical application.
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. Likewise, claim 19 does not recite “significantly more” than the judicial exception for the same reasons, which are hereby repeated by reference.
Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for failing to recite significantly more than a judicial exception of 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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–9, 12–14, 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.
The amendment to claim 1 adds three separate pieces of new matter to the claim: (1) “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier,” (2) using “micro mobility device loading information” to control the loading of the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier, and (3) “transmitting, to a user device, a non-permission message for replacement with another micro mobility device and a use prohibition message for a predetermined period based on checking whether or not the micro mobility device is returned to the movable carrier,” even in a case where the claim requires the micro mobility device to be loaded onto the movable carrier.
(1) The written description fails to disclose a method comprising “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier.” The Applicant points to paragraphs 105, 109, 115, and 159 for support of this amendment. (See Response 10). However, none of these paragraphs disclose that the movable carrier performs the act of self-loading the micro mobility device, let alone instructions for controlling a movable carrier to load the micro mobility device onto itself.
Paragraph [0105] is a description of the factors a server 100 considers when deciding which movable carrier to dispatch to a micro mobility device, which is necessarily before the movable carrier even meets with the micro mobility device. It cannot possibly disclose loading the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier, because they have not even met yet.
Paragraph [0109] only says that “A user may drive the micro mobility device 300 to a corresponding movable carrier 400 by identifying access location information and put the micro mobility device 300 on the carrier 400.” Clearly, a human user manually loading the micro mobility device onto the carrier does not disclose “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier.” Paragraph [0156] (not cited by the Applicant) confirms the same arrangement.
Paragraph [0115] describes the messages that are exchanged after the human user loads the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier. The new matter alleged in this rejection concerns what happens during the loading.
Finally, paragraph [0159] consists of a single sentence introducing the concept of a multimodal sentence. It is not clear why this paragraph was cited; it may be a typographical error in which the Applicant meant to cite paragraph 158 rather than 159, because paragraph 158 discusses the “non-permission message” limitation added to the end of claim 1.
Accordingly, the Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device on the movable carrier” in the application as filed.
(2) The written description fails to disclose using “micro mobility device loading information” to control the loading of the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier, regardless of who ultimately loads the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier. This newly added limitation misunderstands the purpose of the “micro mobility device loading information.” According to paragraph [0105], “Mobility loading information may be information associated with the number of micro mobility devices 300 that occupy a carrier deck installed on the movable carrier 400.” In other words, the micro mobility device loading information is information about which micro mobility devices are already loaded onto the carrier, not information that is used to control the loading of a currently-unloaded micro mobility device onto the movable carrier. Instead, paragraph [0105] merely says that the server 100 may use the micro mobility device loading information information (along with other information) to inform its decision of which movable carrier 300 to dispatch to a given location.
The remaining paragraphs cited in the Response (109, 115, and 159) do not say anything about the micro mobility device loading information, at all.
Accordingly, the Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of using “micro mobility device loading information” to control the loading of the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier in the application as filed.
(3) The written description fails to disclose a method that includes “transmitting, to a user device, a non-permission message for replacement with another micro mobility device and a use prohibition message for a predetermined period based on checking whether or not the micro mobility device is returned to the movable carrier” subsequent to finishing the step of loading the micro mobility device onto the movable carrier.
The written description only discloses the opposite of this limitation. That is, according to the written description, the non-permission and use prohibition messages are only transmitted “when the micro mobility device is not returned to the carrier.” (Spec. ¶¶ 15 and 158). In contrast, claim 1 requires the micro mobility device to be loaded onto the movable carrier (because of the “controlling the movable carrier to load the micro mobility device” step), but then still transmits the non-permission and use prohibition messages, despite having received the micro mobility device. This is the opposite of paragraphs 15 and 158, and directly interferes with the invention’s entire purpose of preventing abusive users from burdening the system. (See Spec. ¶ 4). The remaining paragraphs mentioned in the Response (105, 109, 115, and 159) do not provide any evidence to the contrary.
Accordingly, since elements (1)–(3) add new matter to the claim, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claims 2–9 and 12–14 depend from claim 1, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for incorporating the new matter of claim 1 by reference.
Claims 19 and 20 recite a computing device and server that are both involved in the performance of new matter elements (1)–(3) identified above in claim 1. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
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
1 The physical activity described in these two steps will be addressed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
2 The physical activity described in these two steps will be addressed in Step 2A, Prong Two.