Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 2/2/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. This is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDSs) filed on behalf of this case on 5/2/2023, 12/9/2024, and 8/11/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 recite a machine as the claims recite a device with a processor executing a program to perform operations. Claim 19 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor executing a program to perform operations. Claim 20 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) 1-20 recite the idea of organizing a 3rd party to transport a vehicle from an owner to a renter, where the 3rd party may be decided upon by the owner or the renter, and further keys to operate the vehicle may be transferred between entities according to rules. The idea of organizing a 3rd party to transport a vehicle from an owner to a renter, where the 3rd party may be decided upon by the owner or the renter, and further keys to operate the vehicle may be transferred between entities according to rules is a concept relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teachings, and or following rules or instructions.
Social activities, teachings, and or following rules or instructions are certain methods of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (1) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could determine one or more transporters to transport a vehicle between an owner and a renter and provide the starting and destination points to the selected transporter. The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by a computer (“device configured to”, “a memory; and a processor that is coupled to the memory, and when executing a program stored in the memory, performs operations comprising:), and the information is provided to a user on a terminal merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could determine a transporter based on conditions. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 3, the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could extract one or more transporters that meet conditions and provide that information to a renter to determine which transporter to select. The additional element that this information is sent to a terminal of the renter merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computer merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 4, the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could extract one or more transporters that meet conditions and provide that information to an owner to determine which transporter to select. There the additional element that this information is sent to a terminal of the owner merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computer merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 5, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could provide information of who the transporter is to an owner and or renter. The additional element that this information is provided to the terminal of an owner or renter merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 6, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could provide location information to another person during transportation of a vehicle from one location to another, for example by reminding them that the vehicle left and will arrive tomorrow etc. The additional element that this is being provided to the terminal of a vehicle owner or renter merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 7, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically an owner could provide a key to a user transporter to unlock and start the vehicle. The additional element that this is being provided to a terminal of a first transporter merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Instead the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Further the claim, invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 8, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically an owner could take the key from a transporter in response to delivery of the vehicle, e.g. the transporter provides it to the renter, or provide the additional key back to the owner. The additional element that this is deleted by the device merely results in apply it. specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Instead the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Further the claim, invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the deletion by the device merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 9, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a renter could be provided a key information in response to a delivery to unlock and start the vehicle, e.g. the one used by the transporter, one sealed in an envelope, etc. The additional element that this is being provided to a terminal of a renter merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Instead the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Further the claim, invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 10, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a user could determine another transporter to transport a vehicle from a third location to a fourth location and provide transportation information to the transporter. The additional element that this information is being provided to a terminal merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 11, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could determine a transporter based on conditions. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 12, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could extract one or more transporters that meet conditions and provide that information to a renter to determine which transporter to select. The additional element that this information is sent to a terminal of the renter merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 13, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could extract one or more transporters that meet conditions and provide that information to an owner to determine which transporter to select. The additional element that this information is sent to a terminal of the owner merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 14, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could provide information of who the transporter is to an owner and or renter. The additional element that this information is provided to the terminal of an owner or renter merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 15, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could provide location information to another person during transportation of a vehicle from one location to another, for example by reminding them that the vehicle left and will arrive tomorrow etc. The additional element that this is being provided to the terminal of a vehicle owner or renter merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 16, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically an owner could provide a key information to a user transporter to unlock and start the vehicle. The additional element that this is being provided to a terminal of a first transporter merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Instead the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Further the claim, invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 17, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a transporter could take the key from a renter in response to a pickup, e.g. the renter provides the key to the transporter, the renter mails back the key, the renter provides the key in a sealed envelope, etc. The additional element that this is deleted by the device merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Instead the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Further the claim, invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 18, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically an owner could take the key from a transporter in response to delivery of the vehicle, e.g. the transporter provides it to the owner, or provide the additional key back to the owner. The additional element that this is deleted by the device merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Instead the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Further the claim, invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could determine one or more transporter to transport a vehicle between an owner and a renter and provide the starting and destination points to the selected transporter. The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by a computer (a transport management device, wherein the transport management device comprises: a memory; and a processor that is coupled to the memory, and when executing a program stored in the memory, performs operations comprising:), and the information is provided to a user on a terminal (“one or more terminals of respective one or more transporters who transport the vehicle between an owner of the vehicle and a renter of the vehicle” and to the terminal) merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 20, The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could determine one or more transporter to transport a vehicle between an owner and a renter and provide the starting and destination points to the selected transporter. The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by a transport management device, and the information is provided to a user on a terminal merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by the above computers merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed in the practical application step above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Canberk et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0091856).
As per claim 1, Canberk et al. teaches A transport management device configured to manage transport of a vehicle for rent, the transport management device comprising: (see paragraph 0006 and 0026, examiner’s note: system (see paragraph 0006), where vehicle is transported to a rental location by a third party (see paragraph 0026)).
a memory; and a processor that is coupled to the memory, and when executing a program stored in the memory, performs operations comprising: (see paragraphs 0035 and 0100-0101, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
determining, based on transporter information including information about one or more transporters who transport the vehicle between an owner of the vehicle and a renter of the vehicle, a first transporter from among the one or more transporters, the first transporter being capable of picking up the vehicle at a first point designated by the owner and transporting the vehicle picked up at the first point to a second point designated by the renter; and transmitting, to a terminal of the first transporter, first transport request information including information indicating the first point and the second point. (see paragraphs 0024, 0025, and 0066-0067, Examiner’s note: teaches on duty third parties delivering rental cars to a renter, where the third party can be provided directions on delivery).
As per claim 2, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first transporter based on condition information contained in the transporter information, the condition information indicating conditions acceptable to the one or more transporters, respectively (see paragraphs 0058 and 0067, Examiner’s note: on duty third party vendors being able to deliver the vehicle (see paragraph 0067). Further a user has to register an account to use the application (see paragraph 0058)).
As per claim 5, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting information indicating the first transporter to at least one of a terminal of the owner and a terminal of the renter (see paragraphs 0066, 0083 and 0087, Examiner’s note: only one is required by the claim but teaches providing delivery information to the user about the third party provider).
As per claim 6, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting information indicating a position of the vehicle to at least one of a terminal of the renter and a terminal of the owner during transporting of the vehicle by the first transporter. (see paragraphs 0066, 0083 and 0087, Examiner’s note: only one is required by the claim but teaches providing delivery information to the user including real time tracking information about the location of the vehicle).
As per claim 10, Canberk et al teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the transporter information, a second transporter from among the one or more transporters, the second transporter being capable of picking up the vehicle at a third point designated by the renter and transporting the vehicle picked up at the third point to a fourth point designated by the owner; and transmitting, to a terminal of the second determined transporter, second transport request information including information indicating the third point and the fourth point (see paragraph 0024, 0067-0068, 0088, Examiner’s note: third party return vehicles, to a location).
As per claim 11, Canberk et al teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: determining the second transporter based on condition information contained in the transporter information, the condition information indicating conditions acceptable to the one or more transporters, respectively. (see paragraphs 0058 and 0067, Examiner’s note: on duty third party vendors being able to deliver the vehicle (see paragraph 0067). Further a user has to register an account to use the application (see paragraph 0058)).
As per claim 14, Canberk et al teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting information indicating the second transporter to at least one of a terminal of the owner and a terminal of the renter. (see paragraphs 0066, 0083 and 0087, Examiner’s note: only one is required by the claim but teaches providing delivery information to the user about the third party provider).
As per claim 15, Canberk et al teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting information indicating a position of the vehicle to at least one of a terminal of the renter and a terminal of the owner during transporting of the vehicle by the second transporter. (see paragraphs 0066, 0083 and 0087, Examiner’s note: only one is required by the claim but teaches providing delivery information to the user including real time tracking information about the location of the vehicle).
As per claim 19, Canberk et a teaches A transport management system configured to manage transport of a vehicle for rent, the transport management system comprising: (see paragraph 0006 and 0026, examiner’s note: system (see paragraph 0006), where vehicle is transported to a rental location by a third party (see paragraph 0026)).
one or more terminals of respective one or more transporters who transport the vehicle between an owner of the vehicle and a renter of the vehicle; (see paragraph 0024 and 0066, Examiner’s note: computing device of a third party who picks up and returns a vehicle to a location).
and a transport management device, wherein the transport management device comprises: a memory; and a processor that is coupled to the memory, and when executing a program stored in the memory, performs operations comprising: (see paragraphs 0035 and 0100-0101, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
determining, based on transporter information including information about the one or more transporters, a first transporter from among the one or more transporters, the first transporter being capable of picking up the vehicle at a first point designated by the owner and transporting the vehicle picked up at the first point to a second point designated by the renter; and transmitting, to a terminal of the first transporter among the one or more terminals, first transport request information including information indicating the first point and the second point. (see paragraphs 0024, 0025, and 0066-0067, Examiner’s note: teaches on duty third parties delivering rental cars to a renter, where the third party can be provided directions on delivery).
As per claim 20, Canberk et al. teaches A transport management method for managing transport of a vehicle for rent by a transport management device, the transport management method comprising: (see paragraph 0007 and 0026, examiner’s note: system (see paragraph 0007), where vehicle is transported to a rental location by a third party (see paragraph 0026)).
determining, based on transporter information including information about one or more transporters who transport the vehicle between an owner of the vehicle and a renter of the vehicle, a first transporter from among the one or more transporters, the first transporter being capable of picking up the vehicle at a first point designated by the owner and transporting the vehicle picked up at the first point to a second point designated by the renter; and transmitting, to a terminal of the first transporter, first transport request information including information indicating the first point and the second point. (see paragraphs 0024, 0025, and 0066-0067, Examiner’s note: teaches on duty third parties delivering rental cars to a renter, where the third party can be provided directions on delivery).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0091856) further in view of Rao (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0236088).
As per claim 3,Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: extracting one or more transporter candidates from among the one or more transporters, the one or more transporter candidates matching the condition information; (see paragraphs 0058 and 0067, Examiner’s note: on duty third party vendors being able to deliver the vehicle (see paragraph 0067). Further a user has to register an account to use the application (see paragraph 0058)).
And the renter purchases products (see paragraph 0027, 0046-0047, Examiner’s note: purchasing or paying to rent products).
Canberk does not expressly teach transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the buyer; and determining, to be the first transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the buyer through the terminal of the buyer
However, Rao which is in the art of managing deliveries (see abstract) teaches transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the buyer; and determining, to be the first transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the buyer through the terminal of the buyer (see paragraphs 0035 and 0051, Examiner’s note: teaches matching delivery persons based on constraints like ratings and zip codes, and allowing a buyer to select a delivery person, and teaches the services are accessed by a device (see paragraph 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rao with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to select a delivery person (see Rao paragraphs 0035 and 0051), when providing the user with information regarding the delivery person and allowing a user to modify or change the delivery is known (see Canberk et al. paragraphs 0051 and 0083).
As per claim 4, Canberk et al teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: extracting one or more transporter candidates from among the one or more transporters, the one or more transporter candidates matching the condition information; (see paragraphs 0058 and 0067, Examiner’s note: on duty third party vendors being able to deliver the vehicle (see paragraph 0067). Further a user has to register an account to use the application (see paragraph 0058)).
And owner of the rental and receives payment (see paragraphs 0026 , 0046-0047, 0063, Examiner’s note: owner of the vehicle).
Canberk does not expressly teach transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the seller; and determining, to be the first transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the seller through the terminal of the seller
However, Rao which is in the art of managing deliveries (see abstract) teaches transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the seller; and determining, to be the first transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the seller through the terminal of the seller (see paragraphs 0035 and 0067, Examiner’s note: teaches selecting a delivery person (see paragraph 0067) and teaches the services are accessed by a device (see paragraph 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rao with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to select a delivery person (see Rao paragraphs 0035 and 0051), when providing the user with information regarding the delivery person and allowing a user to modify or change the delivery is known (see Canberk et al. paragraphs 0051 and 0083).
As per claim 12, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: extracting one or more transporter candidates from among the one or more transporters, the one or more transporter candidates matching the condition information; (see paragraphs 0058 and 0067, Examiner’s note: on duty third party vendors being able to deliver the vehicle (see paragraph 0067). Further a user has to register an account to use the application (see paragraph 0058)).
And the renter purchases products (see paragraph 0027, 0046-0047, Examiner’s note: purchasing or paying to rent products).
Canberk does not expressly teach transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the buyer; and determining, to be the second transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the buyer through the terminal of the buyer.
However, Rao which is in the art of managing deliveries (see abstract) teaches transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the buyer; and determining, to be the second transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the buyer through the terminal of the buyer (see paragraphs 0035 and 0051, Examiner’s note: teaches matching delivery persons based on constraints like ratings and zip codes, and allowing a buyer to select a delivery person, and teaches the services are accessed by a device (see paragraph 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rao with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to select a delivery person (see Rao paragraphs 0035 and 0051), when providing the user with information regarding the delivery person and allowing a user to modify or change the delivery is known (see Canberk et al. paragraphs 0051 and 0083).
As per claim 13, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: extracting one or more transporter candidates from among the one or more transporters, the one or more transporter candidates matching the condition information; (see paragraphs 0058 and 0067, Examiner’s note: on duty third party vendors being able to deliver the vehicle (see paragraph 0067). Further a user has to register an account to user the application (see paragraph 0058)).
And owner of the rental and receives payment (see paragraphs 0026 , 0046-0047, 0063, Examiner’s note: owner of the vehicle).
Canberk does not expressly teach transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the seller; and determining, to be the second transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the seller through the terminal of the seller.
However, Rao which is in the art of managing deliveries (see abstract) teaches transmitting information indicating the one or more transporter candidates to a terminal of the seller; and determining, to be the second transporter, one of the one or more transporter candidates being selected by the seller through the terminal of the seller (see paragraphs 0035 and 0067, Examiner’s note: teaches selecting a delivery person (see paragraph 0067) and teaches the services are accessed by a device (see paragraph 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rao with the motivation of providing a way to allow a user to select a delivery person (see Rao paragraphs 0035 and 0051), when providing the user with information regarding the delivery person and allowing a user to modify or change the delivery is known (see Canberk et al. paragraphs 0051 and 0083).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0091856) further in view of Jameel et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0325521).
As per claim 7, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting first key information to the terminal of the first transporter, (see paragraph 0067, Examiner’s note: keyless entry).
Canberk does not expressly teach the first key information enabling unlock and start of the vehicle.
However, Jameel et al. which is in the art of a vehicle rental system (See abstract) teaches the first key information enabling unlock and start of the vehicle (see paragraph 0121 and 0124-0125, Examiner’s note: keyless entry and a key for ignition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jameel et al. with the motivation of providing a way to start a rental vehicle for use in a rental vehicle system (see Jameel et al. paragraphs 0121 and 0124-0125), when using a keyless entry system in a rental system is known (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0067).
As per claim 8, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: allowing the renter to drive the vehicle instead of the transporter in response to delivery of the vehicle from the first transporter to the renter. (see paragraph 0026, Examiner’s note: renter has exclusive access to the vehicle during a reservation period).
Canberk et al. does not expressly teach deleting the first key information
However, Jameel et al. which is in the art of a vehicle rental system (See abstract) teaches deleting the first key information (see paragraph 0117, Examiner’s note: reservation or changes to reservation may be sent so that only an authorized driver can unlock or operate a vehicle during scheduled times).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. in view of Jamal et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jameel et al. with the motivation of providing a way to only allow users who are supposed to be using a vehicle during a specific time period to use to vehicle (see Jameel et al. paragraph 0117), when allowing a user exclusive access to the vehicle during a reservation period (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0026) and keyless entry (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0067) are both known.
As per claim 9, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: allowing the renter to drive the vehicle instead of the transporter in response to delivery of the vehicle from the first transporter to the renter, (see paragraph 0026, Examiner’s note: renter has exclusive access to the vehicle during a reservation period).
Canberk et al. does not expressly teach(1) transmitting second key information to a terminal of the renter and (2) the second key information enabling unlock and start of the vehicle.
However, Jameel et al. which is in the art of a vehicle rental system (See abstract) teaches (1) transmitting second key information to a terminal of the renter and (2) the second key information enabling unlock and start of the vehicle. (see paragraph 0121 and 0124-0125, Examiner’s note: keyless entry and a key for ignition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. in view of Jameel et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jameel et al. with the motivation of providing a way to start a rental vehicle for use in a rental vehicle system (see Jameel et al. paragraphs 0121 and 0124-0125), when using a keyless entry system in a rental system is known (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0067).
As per claim 16, Canberk et al teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting third key information to the terminal of the second transporter, (see paragraph 0067, Examiner’s note: keyless entry).
Canberk does not expressly teach the third key information enabling unlock and start of the vehicle.
However, Jameel et al. which is in the art of a vehicle rental system (See abstract) teaches the third key information enabling unlock and start of the vehicle (see paragraph 0121 and 0124-0125, Examiner’s note: keyless entry and a key for ignition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jameel et al. with the motivation of providing a way to start a rental vehicle in a rental vehicle system (see Jameel et al. paragraphs 0121 and 0124-0125), when using a keyless entry system in a rental system is known (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0067).
As per claim 17, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: allowing the transporter to drive the vehicle instead of the renter in response to pickup of the vehicle by the second transporter from the renter (see paragraphs 0024 and 0067-0070, Examiner’s note: 3rd party performing rental car return in response to return request)
Canberk et al. does not expressly teach deleting the second key information.
However, Jameel et al. which is in the art of a vehicle rental system (See abstract) teaches deleting the second key information (see paragraph 0117, Examiner’s note: reservation or changes to reservation may be sent so that only an authorized driver can unlock or operate a vehicle during scheduled times).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. in view of Jamal et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jameel et al. with the motivation of providing a way to only allow users who are supposed to be using a vehicle during a specific time period to use to vehicle (see Jameel et al. paragraph 0117), when allowing a user exclusive access to the vehicle during a reservation period (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0026) and rental cars being returned by a 3rd party and not the renter (see Canberk paragraphs 0024 and 0067-0070) are both known.
As per claim 18, Canberk et al. teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: allowing the renter to drive the vehicle instead of the transporter in response to delivery of the vehicle from the second transporter to the owner. (see paragraph 0026, 0069,and 0085, Examiner’s note: renter has exclusive access to the vehicle during a reservation period).
Canberk et al. does not expressly teach deleting the third key information
However, Jameel et al. which is in the art of a vehicle rental system (See abstract) teaches deleting the third key information (see paragraph 0117, Examiner’s note: reservation or changes to reservation may be sent so that only an authorized driver can unlock or operate a vehicle during scheduled times).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Canberk et al. in view of Jamal et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jameel et al. with the motivation of providing a way to only allow users who are supposed to be using a vehicle during a specific time period to use to vehicle (see Jameel et al. paragraph 0117), when allowing a user exclusive access to the vehicle during a reservation period (see Canberk et al. paragraph 0026).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reiser (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0294114) teaches a smart key for rental vehicles to allow a user to have access to rental vehicles (see abstract and Figure 10).
Sakurada et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0205797) teaches a carsharing system where the system unlocks and locks the vehicle at the time and date of the vehicle reservation (see abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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/interviewpr