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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
a tracking module for tracking real-time location and mileage
a barcode or rfid scanning module for quick and accurate retrieval of information from a barcode sticker or RFIG tag
a GPS fencing module that restricts movement….
In claim 2:
an alert module designed to promptly notify….
In claim 4:
a classifier to classify….
In claim 5:
a receiving unit for receiving
In claim 6:
a matching unit that compares….
In claim 10:
a provision that enables users to rate their rental experience
The use of the language “module for” performing the claimed functions, and/or reciting language such as a module designed to perform a function, or a unit for, or unit that performs a function, a classifier to classify, and/or a provision to perform a function, are all considered to be generic placeholder terms that are invoking 112f. The generic placeholders do not include recognized structure such that one would understand that 112f is not being invoked. The generic placeholder terms are coupled to functions to be performed and are not modified by any structure in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitations and the language used passes the 3 prong test for determining if 112f has been invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraphs 088-089 teach that the system is comprises of communication devices such as smartphones or tablets and PCs, and that the system uses well known types of data networks for data communication. The corresponding structure for the recited elements that are invoking 112f is considered to be computing devices that are performing the recited functions with an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed functions. Any deficiencies in disclosure to the algorithm part of the disclosure requirement for using 112f language will be addressed via 35 USC 112b.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. AriadPharms., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir.1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Regents of the University of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement"). In addition, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568).
For claims 1,19, 20, the claims recites that the GPS fencing functionality restricts movement of the rental equipment within a predetermined radius and claim 3 recites that the equipment includes an automatic shutdown or disablement feature that activates upon breaching the GPS fencing. While the specification does teach that GPS fencing is used to track the location of the rented equipment, nothing is disclosed about how the system goes about and actually restricts the movement of the equipment as claimed, and/or how the automatic shut-down or disablement feature works. The specification teaches that a GPS tracking device such as an air tag is placed into a locked bag that is attached to an article to be rented. The tracking device is used to track the location and movement of the rented equipment that the bag is attached to. If the rented equipment is determined to have left the GPS fencing, it is disclosed that a notification is sent out to various parties, as is recited in pending claim 2. However, nothing is disclosed in the specification about actually having any way to restrict the movement of the rented equipment once it has left the GPS fencing, and the specification does not disclose anything about how the automatic shut-down or disablement feature works. Attaching a bag that has a tracking device in the bag to a rented item, and/or attaching a tracking device to a rented item, does not does not result in one having the ability to actually restrict the movement of the rented item or shut down the item or disable it. The broad function of using GPS tracking to track movement of the vehicle and being able to sense when the vehicle has left a GPS fencing area does not actually restrict the movement of the equipment in any manner. The extent of there being any restriction on the movement of the rented equipment is found in the specification in paragraph 022 where it is stated that “The system incorporates GPS fencing functionality, which effectively restricts the movement of the rental equipment within a predetermined radius centered around the designated usage location.”. The use of a GPS fence does not actually restrict the movement of the rented equipment in any manner because one can still move the equipment around when outside of the geofence, such as when the equipment is inside of a truck or when the equipment is a vehicle that is being rented and driven by a user. Nothing has been disclosed about structure that serves to restrict the movement of the equipment if outside of the GPS fence, and nothing is disclosed about how the equipment is configured to shut the rented equipment down and/or disable it. The specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention that is sufficient to show possession of the claimed invention in this regard.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 4, the claim recites a classifier to classify the rental equipment into predetermined categories. While the specification does teach that this function occurs, the claim is using language that invokes 112f and requires disclosure to an algorithm in the specification. When the specification is consulted for information on how the classifier goes about and performs the step of actually classifying the equipment, it is noted that nothing is disclosed. Nothing is disclosed about how the classification process (the algorithm) works as far as what information is looked at by the classifier and how the classifier determines the classifications. The covered structure for the claim language that is invoking 112f is a computing device of some kind and an algorithm to accomplish the claimed result. For claim 4 and the classifying limitation, the algorithm has not been disclosed in the specification. This renders the claim indefinite because the algorithm is not known.
For claim 13, the claim recites that the system “comprises a designated section” that allows renters and a rentee to engage in communication 24/7 via a phone call. What element is the designated section a part of? A designated section in and of itself is not clear because it is not known what claim element the designated section is part of. Also, in terms of structure to a system, what is a designated section? A section is a portion of something, not something that itself recites structure to part of the system. This renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the scope of the claimed computer program product that comprises a computer readable storage medium includes transitory embodiments in the claim scope. The specification does not provide a definition for the claimed computer program product, and does not actually mention the computer program product or a computer readable medium. Nothing in the specification indicates that the claim language excludes transitory signals and non-statutory embodiments from the scope of the claimed computer program product that comprises a computer readable medium. The claim includes non-statutory subject matter in the claim scope and does not pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis that is performed in view of 35 USC 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims 1-19 pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis. Claim 20 does not pass step 1 as is noted above but has been treated further because it also recites an abstract idea in the claim scope and requires further analysis to do a complete examination on the merits.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of renting equipment to users and tracking the movement of the equipment.
Using claim 19 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 1, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
enables renters and rentees to navigate through a menu and access various features;
securely attaching a GPS tracking device to each rental equipment to monitor its real- time location and track mileage coverage during transportation (this step can be performed by a person manually attaching a device to a piece of equipment);
integrating a barcode sticker or RFID tag into the rental equipment to facilitate quick and accurate retrieval of detailed information associated with the rental equipment; (a person can integrate a barcode sticker or rfid tag onto equipment by placing the sticker on the equipment)
restrict the movement of the rental equipment within a predetermined radius from the center of its designated usage location,
display comprehensive information about the rental equipment, including ownership details and rental availability;
provide a visual representation of the current location of the rental equipment; and
evaluate the accessibility of the rental equipment for potential borrowers at specified times within predetermined locations.
The above limitations are reciting a process of renting and of monitoring the movements of a rented item and is claiming actions taken during the course of a rental. Renting of items is a fundamental economic practice that represents a certain method of organizing human activities. As is discussed in the Background of the Invention on pages 1-3, the rental market is large and there are companies in business that rent equipment to users and that track the movements and location of their rented equipment. Rental cars are one example of where rented items are tracked so that their location is known and so that mileage fees and charges can be assessed for a rental. This is part of the business model that rental companies use to conduct their business of renting. Renting items to users and tracking the inventor of rentable assets is a business practice that is economic in nature and is a fundamental part of our economy. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities abstract idea that is renting and tracking rented items.
For claim 1 the additional elements are the graphical user interface, the recitation to using modules and other language that invokes 112f (and that recites a computing device as part of the covered structure that is an additional element), and the GPS tracking device.
For claim 19, the additional elements are the use of the graphical user interface and the GPS tracking device. The attachment of the GPS device to the equipment and the integration of the sticker can be performed by people and is not an additional element.
For claim 20, the additional elements are the recitation to a computer program product that includes instructions to execute the steps that define the abstract idea, the use of a graphical user interface, and the GPS tracking device.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device and an interface, that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) with the use of GPS to track location (using GPS in its ordinary capacity to do what it is designed to do). This does not provide for integration into a practical application. The claimed modules and the use of a computing device to perform the recited steps is claiming the use of a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea and does not provide for integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Using GPS to track location is using GPS in the expected manner in conjunction with a judicial exception does not provide for more than an instruction to use GPS to determine location. GPS is used to provide location and track location movements. That is what GPS does and is what GPS is used for. The applicant is using GPS in its ordinary capacity to do what it is designed to do, and does not provide for integration into a practical application. The tracking using GPS in real time is just an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the tracking. The above is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than the use of a computing device with an interface as a tool to execute the abstract idea, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) with the use of GPS to track location (using GPS in its ordinary capacity to do what it is designed to do). This does not provide for significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claimed modules and the use of a computing device with an interface to perform the recited steps is using a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea. Using GPS to track location is using GPS in the expected manner that it would be used, which is to provide location and track location movements. The tracking in real time is just an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the tracking using GPS. This does not amount to reciting significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(f)(2) with respect to using a device in its ordinary capacity in conjunction with a judicial exception.
Claim 1, 19 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 2, the claimed alert that can promptly notify a renter or rentee that the rented equipment is outside of the GPS fencing is reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 1. An alert can be given by two people talking such as by using a phone call to verbally convey the alert. The fact that the alert is generated by an alert module is an instruction for one to use a computer as a tool to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not eligible.
For claim 3, claiming a feature that can shut down or disable the equipment is considered to be a further embellishment of the abstract idea. A feature is also not claiming any specific type of structure to anything that is capable of shutting down equipment but does appear to read on a power button for equipment. A person can disable equipment by turning it off or by taking the key out of an ignition. That is a feature that allows for one to disable the equipment, such as a power button for a given piece of equipment. No further additional element has been claimed for consideration beyond those already addressed in claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, the claimed classifying the rental equipment is a further element of the same abstract idea of claim 1. A person can classifying equipment mentally if they wanted to. This is part of the abstract idea. The claimed classifier is considered to be invoking112f and is reciting the additional element of computer implementation for the classification. This is another instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). and does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong or provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, the receiving of a request from a renter as claimed is reciting more about the abstract idea. This is part of the act of renting, one must request a rental and specify when they want the rental to occur. This element is reciting more about the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, the comparing of the equipment types with a list of available equipment is a recitation to the abstract idea and is the act of searching for equipment that satisfies the request from a user. This is part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 7, the claimed background check is part of the abstract idea. This can be performed by people manually and the specification teaches that the background check is performed by a third party and not by the claimed system. The system requests that a background check be performed, which is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 8, 10, 11, reciting the details of the transporter and the provision that allows one to rate their rental experience, and a listing that includes the ratings, are elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of the claims. Details of a transporter is reciting information per se and does not represent a step/function or structure to the system. This is information about a person that can provide a delivery service and does not define structure or a function. As to the rating limitation, people can render a rating manually with no technology at all. This is part of the abstract idea. The listing of ratings being provided is also part of the abstract idea and can be provided on paper. The fact that the system uses modules, etc. is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 9, showing a renter a map with available rentals is a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claim 1. This can be done by using a paper map. The fact that the claim recites the use of the interface to display the map is another instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 12, the ability of a user to sort through rental equipment as claimed that is available is reciting more about the abstract idea. Sorting of data based on criteria, such as sorting based on size or price or location are all elements that are part of a search for rentable equipment and are part of the abstract idea. No further additional element has been claimed for consideration beyond those already addressed in claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 13, the ability of a renter and rentee to engage in communication with a 24/7 service line using a phone call is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The ability for two people to talk to each other is itself human activity and is managing of a relationship between the two for purposes of conducting the business of a rental. This defines more about the abstract idea. The claimed section is considered to be a general instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 14, the home GPS location feature is recited as being the assignment of a designated location for the equipment. This is reciting more about the abstract idea. A person can mentally determine a home GPS location and can assign it to a given piece of equipment. This is defining more about the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 15, reciting the continuous tracking of location for the equipment is reciting more about the abstract idea. The use of the tracking module has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1, to which applicant is referred. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 16, the applicant is reciting what the system requires as far as requiring a transporter to create an account using valid ID documents. This language is not defining a further function of the system or a capability of the system or one of the recite modules. A requirement in a broad sense is abstract and is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 17, allowing renters flexibility to set rental prices and determining the delivery rate of the rental equipment are elements that are part of the abstract idea. This is claiming what the system allows to occur, but that is not tied to the system itself as far as a functional ability of the system. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 18, the ability for a rentee to initiate a claim if the equipment is damaged is claiming more about the abstract idea. The claimed element reads on an insurance claim for damage to an item such as when a rented vehicle is involved in an accident and is damaged. This is also reciting more about the abstract idea and/or is itself a separate abstract idea that is the concept of accident/damage insurance. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flossmor et al. (2022024578) in view of Batten et al. (20180190040) in view of Assadsangabi et al. (20180253928).
For claims 1, 15, 19, 20, Flossmor teaches a system and method for renting vehicles to users through an online matching system that matches user requests for a rental vehicle to one or more available vehicles that can satisfy the user request. See paragraph 023.
The claimed use of a graphical user interface to allow renters (vehicle owners) and rentees (users) to navigate a menu and access features is satisfied by the disclosure to using computing devices connected through a network to a server. The user device 204 and the vehicle owner device 202 are both computing devices that have an interface for data display and are used by users requesting a vehicle and by vehicle owners who rent out their vehicles. For example see paragraph 032, where the use of an interface to display information to a user is disclosed. Paragraph 039 teaches that a user can select from a list of one or more available vehicles to rent, which requires the use of a graphical user interface to allow a user to enter a vehicle request and so that search results can be displayed so that users to select a vehicle to rent. This satisfies the claimed graphical user interface for both the renters and the rentees.
The interface is disclosed as displaying comprehensive information about rental equipment that includes ownership details and availability as claimed, see paragraphs 037, 039, where it is disclosed that a user is provided with search results about available vehicles and information about the vehicles and the owners. This satisfies what is claimed when details of the vehicle and owner are given to the requesting user and when information about the requesting user is given to the vehicle owner.
The interface provides a visual representation of the current location of the vehicle as claimed, see paragraph 032, 053, 072. The owner is provided with real time information about the vehicle and its use. A map of vehicle locations in real time can be rendered for a user. This satisfies what is claimed.
The interface allows users to enter information about a vehicle request so that an evaluation of the accessibility of rental equipment for potential borrowers and specified times within predetermined locations can occur as claimed. A user can send a request for a vehicle that includes information such as vehicle type and date for rental and duration for the rental. See paragraph 044. An evaluation is then done to match the user request with available vehicles and the user is provided with search results, see paragraph 039, 045.
Flossmor teaches a tracking module that is used to track real time location of a vehicle by using GPS. Paragraphs 032, 053, and 072 disclose that the system uses GPS to determine location and so that the system can send out geo-fence alerts and can perform trip tracking and logging. Real time vehicle information can be sent to the vehicle owner and that includes the real time location of a vehicle. See paragraphs 086, 104 as examples. The portion of the system that is obtaining the location information from the GPS and that is performing trip tracking and logging satisfies the claimed tracking module that is attached to a GPS tracking device (part of the telematics system for the vehicle and/or GPS of the user device).
The GPS fencing module is considered to be satisfied by the fact that Flossmor teaches the use of a geo-fence, see paragraph 072. This satisfies the claimed GPS fencing module.
Not disclosed by Flossmor is that the tracking module is tracking mileage.
Not disclosed by Flossmor is that the GPS fencing module is operable to restrict the movement of the rental equipment within a radius from a center location (the geofence area). Flossmor teaches the use of a geo-fence and sending out a geo-fence alert, but does not teach that the movement of the vehicle is restricted as claimed.
Not disclosed by Flossmor is that a barcode or rfid module is used and that allows for quick and accurate retrieval of information pertaining to the rental equipment from a barcode sticker or rfid tag attached to a rented article.
With respect to using the tracking module to track mileage, Flossmor teaches that the tracking module is used to perform trip tracking and logging, see paragraph 072. Flossmor also teaches in paragraph 036 that the mileage of the vehicle is a piece of information that is obtained from the vehicle owner. Paragraph 037 teaches that the user request for a vehicle can specify a vehicle mileage which is then used to search for vehicles that satisfy the requested mileage. Flossmor recognizes the important of knowing the mileage of the vehicle and teaches the mileage as being used in the matching process to match a user with a vehicle. While not disclosed, knowing that rental vehicles and their use involves mileage being put onto a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flossmor with the ability to track and/or log the mileage covered by the rental vehicle so that the current mileage of the vehicle is known. This would allow for the owner to know the vehicle mileage and how many miles a given vehicle has been driven, and allows for the system to have the mileage so it can be used in the matching process when mileage is part of search request for a vehicle. Tracking the mileage yields predictable results of knowing the current milage and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the GPS fencing module being able to restrict movement of the rental equipment, Flossmor teaches the use of GPS and teaches the issuance of a geofence alert, but does not elaborate more on how that works or what it specifically means other than a geofence area is part of the system of Flossmor. Batten et al. (20180190040) teaches a vehicle geo-fence feature for a vehicle that can disable the vehicle and can restrict its movement upon being disabled. The use with a rented vehicle is taught in paragraph 011. In paragraph 003 Batten teaches that a geofence “is a term that can describe location-based mobile services that initiate actions when a position locating device is moved into or out of a defined geographic area. For example, a GPS equipped smartphone can be set to allow advertisers to send text or application based messages to a smartphone when entering a defined geographic area, such as a shopping mall. As another example, a GPS vehicle tracking systems can note and send warnings or messages when a vehicle moves across a government boundary such as a city, county, state, federal park, or Indian reservation.” Paragraph 066 teaches that the use of the geofence allows for alerts to be sent out if the vehicle has gone outside of the geofence area and teaches that this can include disabling a vehicle. By disabling the vehicle one is inherently restricting its movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flossmor with the ability to restrict the movement of the rented vehicles outside of the geofence by disabling the vehicles as the vehicle as taught by Batten, which is done by monitoring the vehicle location with GPS to determine if the vehicle travels outside of the geofence area. This would allow the vehicle owner to enforce the geofence area and prevent use of the vehicle outside of the geofence area. This yields predictable results and is reciting something that is well known in the art of using a geofence with rented equipment.
With respect to the barcode or rfid module is used and that allows for quick and accurate retrieval of information pertaining to the rental equipment from a barcode sticker or rfid tag attached to a rented article, Assadsangabi et al. (20180253928) teaches an item rental system that can be used to rent items such as umbrellas, sporting equipment, consumer electronics as examples. Disclosed in paragraph 049 is that items that can be rented can be provided with a barcode or an RFID tag that is attached to the rented item, and that can be scanned to obtain information about the rental item. This is an example in the prior art that rented items can have a barcode or RFID tag attached thereto for the purposes of being scanned and providing information to a tracking system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flossmor with the further ability to attach a barcode sticker or an RFID tag to the rented vehicles so that one could scan the barcode or interrogate the RFID tag to obtain information. This is something that is known in the art and its provision into the system of Flossmor would yield predictable results.
For claim 2, Batten teaches that a geofence alert can be sent out when the vehicle is detected outside of the geofence area. Flossmor teaches the use of a geofence alert but does not specify what the alert is for. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flossmor with the further ability to issue a geofence alert when the vehicle is determined to have gone outside of the geofence area (GPS fence boundaries). This would allow for the owner of the vehicle to be notified that the vehicle has left the geofence boundary.
For claim 3, the recited feature of disabling the rental equipment has been addressed with claim 1 that recites the restricting the movement of the rental equipment within a geofence. This is satisfied by the combination set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred.
For claim 4, the system of Flossmor teaches that type is something that can be specified by the user, see paragraph 044 where the class or type of vehicle desired is disclosed. For a user to be able to request a vehicle type, that requires that the vehicles be classified into types as is claimed. The classes or types of vehicles taught by Flossmor satisfy the claimed categories for the rental equipment.
For claim 5, see paragraphs 037, 038, 039, 044, 090 where user requests for a rental vehicle are disclosed. The request can include information such as the type of rental (paragraph 044) and a desired rental period (date, duration).
For claim 6, the matching process of Flossmor compares rental equipment (vehicles) to user requests to find a match, so that a list of available vehicles can be provided to the requestor. See paragraphs 037, 039. The user is provide with a list of one or more vehicles that can satisfy the user request. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 7, see paragraph 066 that discloses a background check as being performed. While not disclosed, it would have been obvious to perform a background check on both the renter and the vehicle owners so that trust between the two can be increased. Flossmor talks a lot about having the system structured such that it will develop trust between the renter and the vehicle owner. Obviously having a background check performed is something that would foster trust between two people looking to enter into a rental for a vehicle.
For claim 9, see paragraph 053 where the use of a map that shows the current location of vehicles is disclosed. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claims 10, 11, see paragraphs 025, 041, 063, 087 where user ratings are disclosed for both the renter and the rentee. The ratings are disclosed displayed through the graphical user interface when a user is viewing a vehicle to rent, or when a renter is viewing a potential rentee who has requested a vehicle. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 12, the user is able to submit a search request that specifies parameters such as a proximity to their location or the type of vehicle desired or other desired criteria that the system uses to sort through available vehicles. Paragraph 054 teaches that filtering of the available vehicles occurs to create subset of vehicles, that is then further searched. This satisfies what is claimed. With respect to the parameters and what they are called, this is directed at non-functional descriptive material that does not define over Flossmor. The ability to sort available vehicles based on various parameters is taught by Flossmor and satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 16, Flossmor teaches that all users must create an account with the system to be able to use the system. See paragraphs 036, 060 where a registration process is disclosed that creates an account for users and for vehicle owners. The claimed rental equipment transporter reads on a user in Flossmor who is requesting use of a vehicle. Also, what you call a person who is creating an account with the system does not define anything to the creation of the account itself. A renter that drives a rented vehicle is fairly called a rental equipment transporter.
For claim 17, the system is disclosed as determining a rate (delivery rate) for the rental of the vehicle that is provided to the vehicle owner, see paragraph 050. The vehicle owner can then set the price as they see fit to arrive at the rental price. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 18, not disclosed by Flossmor is that if a rental arrives damaged or in a non-functional state, the rentee has an option to initiate a claim through the system. The recited “claim” can be a complaint or a request to remedy the situation when the rented vehicle does not work. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a user in Flossmor with the ability to file a claim (a compliant, a request for a remedy, a refund request) with the system when rental equipment arrives damaged or is not able to be used. In the event that the rental vehicle is broken and will not start, the user who thought they were renting a working vehicle would want to be able to file a claim with the system to obtain relief and to obtain a remedy. In that situation where the item is damaged or does not work, this would have been obvious and is more or less the act of allowing a user to file a complaint with the system.
For claim 13, not discloses is a designated section (see 112b) that allows the renter and the rentee to engage in real time communication with a customer service line 24/7. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that customer service calls lines exist and are well known in the art, including ones that are open 24/7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide registered users in Flossmor with a 24/7 customer service line to call into so that they can get help if they need it. This is just providing a very well-known feature to the system of Flossmor that yields predictable results.
For claim 8, the claim recites that the system includes details of a transporter. This is claiming that the system includes information about a person. The recitation to the transporter transporting the rental equipment does not receive weight because that is the action of a human being and does not define anything to the claimed system. The system of Flossmor stores information about users who register with the system. This satisfies what is claimed. The intended use of the transporter does not define anything to the claimed system.
For claim 14, Flossmor teaches that the location of the rental equipment is used by the system to render matches between vehicles and requests for vehicles. This satisfies the home GPS feature that is claimed because the system of Flossmor uses the location of the vehicle (each vehicle owner has a different location such as their house) to provide matches to requests for vehicles. This location of the owner is a designed predefined home GPS location for the vehicle that is used in the matching process. This satisfies what is claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (20200013112) teaches that rental items can have a barcode attached thereto so that it can be scanned to obtain information, see paragraph 004. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Berkobin (WO 2008/151103) teaches the use of GPS and geofencing for a vehicle that disables the vehicle if it leaves the geofence, see paragraph 043. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Schwarz et al. (20070185728) teaches the use of geofences for rented vehicles and the disabling of the vehicle in response to driving outside of the geofence area. See the abstract and paragraphs 057,058, 064. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626