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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed 6/1/2026. Applicant has amended claims 14, 16, and 23-24. Claim 21 has been canceled. Claims 14-16, 19-20, and 22-27 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103 set forth in the previous office action. However, a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been raised below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered. While it is not agreed that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, Applicant’s arguments that the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application are persuasive (see page 8). In addition, considering the claim as a whole and the additional elements (GPS signals from a personal mobility device; sensor signals from a locking mechanism of the at least one docking stations, automatically transmitting, via a wireless signal, control signals to the locking mechanism associated with the first docketing station, wherein the control signals are configured to lock out the first docking station, and automatically transmitting an unlock signal to the locking mechanism to unlock the first docking station) alone and in combination provides more than a generic tie to the technical environment and serves to be a meaningful link to this environment.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections on pages 11-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. None of the prior art teaches or renders obvious: automatically transmitting, via a wireless network, control signals to the locking mechanism associated with the first docking station to reserve the first docketing station for the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider, wherein the control signals are configured to lock out the first docking station during a time period until the estimated arrival time of the rider, wherein during the time period the first docketing station is locked out, the first docketing station is available to receive a personal mobility vehicle for docking but is locked out for use by a personal mobility vehicle that is not the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider.
Seagraves discloses, among other things, a bike sharing system that predicts docking spot availability based on historical, contextual and other data. Seagraves predicts the availability of docking spots at the station and makes recommendations in a bicycle sharing environment, where the bicycle station communicates with the user through a user device. Using the user device, the bicycle station may receive a signal emitting from the device, use authentication parameters, and automatically unlock the mechanism at the docking station. The bicycle sharing station facilitates the checking out or checking in of bicycles and controls the locking and unlocking of all of the docking spots at the bicycle station. However, it is agreed that Seagraves does not disclose automatically transmitting, via a wireless network, control signals to the locking mechanism associated with the first docking station to reserve the first docketing
station for the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider, wherein the control signals are
configured to lock out the first docking station during a time period until the estimated arrival time of the rider, wherein […] the first docking station […] is locked out for use by a personal mobility vehicle that is not the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider.
Ran (US 6,317,686) discloses predicted probabilities and flow rates of vehicles, and predicting travel times. It is agreed that Seagraves does not disclose automatically transmitting, via a wireless network, control signals to the locking mechanism associated with the first docking station to reserve the first docketing station for the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider, wherein the control signals are configured to lock out the first docking station during a time period until the estimated arrival time of the rider, wherein […] the first docking station […] is locked out for use by a personal mobility vehicle that is not the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider.
Gingher et al. (US 2012/0215346) discloses a bike locking system at an automatic parking station for bicycles, where the parking station has slots. Per at least figure 2 and [0049], the server computer will reserve an available slot in a bike rack chosen by the user and will hold the reservation for a limited period of time. More preferably, the period of time will be based on the location of the user, the location of the rack, and the expected time for the user to ride to the rack. Upon arriving, the user is authenticated and then the server commands the rack to indicate the reserved slot, where the user places their bike and it is locked. See [0050]- [0052], [0062]. Gingher et al. just does not specifically disclose automatically transmitting, via a wireless network, control signals to the locking mechanism associated with the first docking station to reserve the first docketing station for the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider, wherein the control signals are configured to lock out the first docking station during a time period until the estimated arrival time of the rider, wherein […] the first docking station […] is locked out for use by a personal mobility vehicle that is not the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider. While held, it does not specifically state it is locked out while awaiting the arrival of the user.
The combination of references further does not render the claims obvious. It is noted the feature relied upon for allowability over the prior art is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-16, 19-20, and 22-27 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 claims 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.
Claim 14 recites: automatically transmitting, via a wireless network, control signals to the locking mechanism associated with the first docking station to reserve the first docketing
station for the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider, wherein the control signals are
configured to lock out the first docking station during a time period until the estimated arrival time of the rider, wherein […] the first docking station […] is locked out for use by a personal mobility vehicle that is not the personal mobility vehicle associated with the rider.
Locking mechanisms and lockouts are discussed in the specification, but not in the manner claims. Paragraph 46 generally discusses a docking mechanism with lock assemblies and
paragraphs 47, 51 disclose a user transmitting a request to use a mobility transit vehicle that is docked in one of the bicycle docking stations via their user device. The management system may transmit an unlock signal to a mobility transit vehicle docked in the docking station and/or the docking station via network, and the docking station may automatically unlock the lock mechanism to release the mobility transit vehicle based on the unlock signal. However, this is unlocking a vehicle for use and not locking out a locking mechanism to reserve the docketing station for return of a vehicle.
Paragraphs 52, 68 and 83 discuss that all docking stations may be full when a user is approaching or arrives, and paragraph 75 discusses that the management system may allow riders to reserve in advance docking locations, receiving such requests from their client device and then reserving a dock based on the management system processing the request. Paragraph 84 discloses that historical data, the real-time data, contextual data, and/or other data may be utilized to lock out (i.e., render unavailable) particular docking stations from use and unlock (i.e., render available) particular docking stations. Based on high inflow or outflow rate at a particular location, it can be determined to unlock a larger number of docking stations at the particular location by sending instructions to one or more docking stations. Thereafter, the transportation management system may cause one or more docking stations at the particular location to lock bikes to the docking stations using their respective locking mechanisms to accommodate for increased demand for bikes. Further, paragraph 87 and figure 9 show a method of reserving an available docking station, where based on a request the management system may reserve the first docking station for the rider upon the estimated arrival time of the rider, and states that the disclosure describes particular components, devices, or systems carrying out particular steps of the method of FIG. 9 and contemplates any suitable combination of any suitable components, devices, or systems carrying out any suitable steps of the method.
However, while the specification in paragraphs 52, 68, 83-84, and figure 9 discuss transmitting a lock and unlock signal to a locking mechanism of a docking station, there is no discussion of this being done when the docking station is empty (i.e. there is no vehicle in the slot) to lock it out for a reservation or for a particular rider or during a time period until the estimated arrival time of the rider. The unlock and lock signals are disclosed as transmitted with respect to releasing or locking a vehicle, or general lockouts at docketing stations. This is not done with respect to a given rider and using their estimated time of arrival.
Thus, the originally filed disclosure does not support the limitation identified above. This is considered new matter as it was added by amendment after the filing of the application and is not described in the application as filed.
Claims 15-16, 19-20, and 22-27 depend from claim 14 and rejected for the same reasons based on their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Audet (US 9,684,911) teaches the scenario when a user wants to bring back a bike to a station that is already full and no dock is empty for receiving a bike returned after rental. It discusses determining the number of vehicle receiving spaces available at a station.
Wu (US 2019/0071144) discusses locking devices of a rental bike dock when the bike is to be returned.
Adam (US 2021/0107579) discloses a vehicle station system where a user can return a shared bicycle and discusses the locking mechanism of the parking rack.
Hameed et al. ("Rent-A-Cycle") discusses bike renting or sharing services and the technology involved in implementation and predicting usage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights