DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated January 28, 2026. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgal (US 2010/0280700 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morgal discloses a mobile device (see at least Figure 1A, item 102 | [0023] note the shared vehicle 102 is a mobile device) comprising:
one or more modules implementable at least in part in hardware of the mobile device (see at least [0060] note at least reservation data is stored in the shared vehicle’s embedded processor and local memory) to:
determine that a user event associated with a primary user of the mobile device is scheduled (see at least [0055] note the day user 110, which is a second user, can use the shared vehicle 102 when the distribution user 108, which is the primary user that has reserved the shared vehicle 102 for a return trip at a specific return time, is not using the shared vehicle 102 | [0022] | [0026]);
detect, based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the mobile device, that a second user causes a state change of the mobile device that causes an event conflict condition with the user event (see at least [0055] note the day user 110 tries to return the shared vehicle 102 to an alternate day station 106 | [0056] note when the shared vehicle 102 is connected to the locking receptacle at the day station 106, the shared vehicle’s microprocessor can recognize that it is being attached to an incorrect day station 106 via the (wired/wireless) communication link); and
cause an event state alarm to be output indicating a suggested action for mitigating the event conflict condition (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 notifies the day user 110 of the conflict).
Regarding claim 2, Morgal discloses wherein to detect that the second user causes the state change, the one or more modules are implementable to detect, based on sensor data from the one or more sensors of the mobile device, that an identity of the second user is different than an identity of the primary user (see at least [0051] note the distribution users 108 and day users 110 are identified by user ID devices via an ID device on the shared vehicle 102 | [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is more than a threshold distance from the primary user (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is more than a threshold distance from the correct day station where the first user is located because it is located at an incorrect day station | claim 12, note the shared vehicles have to be returned to specific locations | [0056] note location can be determined via a wireless link).
Regarding claim 4, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is not connected to a charging device (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is not connected to the correct day station | [0059] note the day stations are secured to charging receptacles).
Regarding claim 6, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is more than a threshold proximity from the primary user, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to move the mobile device to within the threshold proximity to the primary user (see at least [0055] note the day user 110 is provided directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station | claim 12, note the shared vehicles have to be returned to specific locations | [0056] note location can be determined via a wireless link).
Regarding claim 7, Morgal discloses wherein the one or more modules are implementable to present a navigation experience for moving the mobile device to within the threshold proximity to the primary user (see at least [0055] note the day user 110 is provided with displayed directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station).
Regarding claim 8, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is not connected to a charging device, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to connect the mobile device to the charging device (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is refused to lock to the day station (where it charges), and the day user 110 is provided with displayed directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station | [0059] note deny request to secure the share vehicle 102 to the charging receptacle).
Regarding claim 9, Morgal discloses wherein the one or more modules are implementable to present a navigation experience for connecting the mobile device to the charging device (see at least [0055] note the day user 110 is provided with displayed directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station).
Regarding claim 10, Morgal discloses wherein to cause the event state alarm to be output, the one or more modules are implementable to transmit an indication of the event state alarm for output via a different mobile device associated with the second user (see at least Figure 6 | [0071] note the day station is a kiosk | [0073] note day station display (on the charge receptacle) | [0107-0108] note charge receptacle display | [0119] note the computer system 700 of the day station kiosk may be a personal computer (PC), a workstation, a notebook or portable computer, a tablet PC, a handheld media player (e.g., an MP3 player), a smart phone device, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Morgal discloses a first mobile device (see at least [0055] note the day station | [0119] note the computer system 700 of the day station kiosk may be a personal computer (PC), a workstation, a notebook or portable computer, a tablet PC, a handheld media player (e.g., an MP3 player), a smart phone device, etc.) comprising:
one or more modules implemented at least in part in hardware of the first mobile device (see at least [0119-120]) to:
detect that an event conflict condition with a user event associated with a second mobile device occurs (see at least Figure 6, item 618, note that when less than ten minutes remains on the rental the display begins to flash | [0107] note the shared vehicle display or the charge receptable display of the day station | [0063] note the day stations can inform the day users 110 to not be tardy | [0051] note the distribution users are associated with at least a user ID device | [0054] note the day users are associated with at least a user ID device),
the event conflict condition detected based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the second mobile device (see at least [0056] note a wired/wireless communication link is established and the day station receives the shared vehicle’s identification | [0043-0044] note the self lock feature and return vehicle button informs the day station of its presence | [0063] note the day stations are aware of which shared vehicles 102 are within its communication range); and
cause an event state alarm to be output via the first mobile device indicating a suggested action for mitigating the event conflict condition (see at least [0107] note the charge receptable display of the day station | [0063] note the day stations can inform the day users 110 to not be tardy | [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Morgal further discloses wherein the user event is associated with a primary user of the second mobile device (see at least [0051] | [0054] | [0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Morgal further discloses wherein the event conflict condition comprises an indication that the second mobile device is more than a threshold distance from the primary user, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to move the second mobile device to within the threshold distance to the primary user (see at least [0063] note the day user 100 is informed to deliver the shared vehicle 102 to a specific location for the distribution user 108 | [0055] note the day user 110 is provided directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station for the distribution user 108 | claim 12, note the shared vehicles have to be returned to specific locations | [0056] note location can be determined via a wireless link | [0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Morgal further discloses wherein the event conflict condition comprises an indication that the second mobile device is not connected to a charging device, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to connect the second mobile device to the charging device (see at least [0063] note the day user 100 is informed to deliver the shared vehicle 102 to a specific location | [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is refused to lock to the day station (where it charges), and the day user 110 is provided with displayed directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station | [0059] note deny request to secure the share vehicle 102 to the charging receptacle).
Regarding claim 16, Morgal discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a user event associated with a primary user of a mobile device is scheduled (see at least [0055] note the day user 110, which is a second user, can use the shared vehicle 102 when the distribution user 108, which is the primary user that has reserved the shared vehicle 102 for a return trip at a specific return time, is not using the shared vehicle 102 | [0022] | [0026]);
detecting, based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the mobile device, that a second user causes a state change of the mobile device that causes an event conflict condition with the user event (see at least [0055] note the day user 110 tries to return the shared vehicle 102 to an alternate day station 106 | [0056] note when the shared vehicle 102 is connected to the locking receptacle at the day station 106, the shared vehicle’s microprocessor can recognize that it is being attached to an incorrect day station 106 via the (wired/wireless) communication link); and causing an event state alarm to be output indicating a suggested action for mitigating the event conflict condition (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 notifies the day user 110 of the conflict).
Regarding claim 17, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises one or more of an indication that the mobile device is more than a threshold distance from the primary user (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is more than a threshold distance from the correct day station where the first user is located because it is located at an incorrect day station | claim 12, note the shared vehicles have to be returned to specific locations | [0056] note location can be determined via a wireless link), or an indication that the mobile device is not connected to a charging device (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is not connected to the correct day station | [0059] note the day stations are secured to charging receptacles).
Regarding claim 18, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is more than a threshold distance from the primary user, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to move the mobile device to within the threshold distance to the primary user (see at least [0055] note the day user 110 is provided directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station | claim 12, note the shared vehicles have to be returned to specific locations | [0056] note location can be determined via a wireless link).
Regarding claim 19, Morgal discloses wherein the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is not connected to a charging device, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to connect the mobile device to the charging device (see at least [0055] note the shared vehicle 102 is refused to lock to the day station (where it charges), and the day user 110 is provided with displayed directions to return the shared vehicle 102 to the appropriate day station | [0059] note deny request to secure the share vehicle 102 to the charging receptacle).
Regarding claim 21, Morgal discloses wherein the user event is stored in a user calendar or application associated with the primary user on the mobile device (see at least [0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgal (US 2010/0280700 A1) in view of Callahan (US 2020/0242519 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Morgal further discloses wherein the event conflict condition comprises an indication of the state change with respect to the scheduled user event (see at least [0063-0064] note a day user can be notified of being tardy).
However, Morgal does not specifically disclose wherein the event conflict condition comprises an indication that the state change persists within a first threshold time period prior to the scheduled user event.
It is known to alert a user in different ways. For example, Callahan teaches a system wherein an event conflict condition comprises an indication that a state change persists within a first threshold time period prior to a scheduled user event (see at least [0053]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Callahan into Morgal. This provides the ability to increasingly notify the user of an approaching deadline.
Regarding claim 11, Morgal in view of Callahan teach wherein the event conflict condition comprises an indication that the state change persists within a first threshold time period prior to the scheduled user event, and wherein the one or more modules are implementable to: determine that the state change persists within a second threshold time period prior to the scheduled user event; and cause a further event state alarm to be output, the further event state alarm comprising an escalated alarm in comparison with the event state alarm (see at least [0053] of Callahan | [0063-0064] of Morgal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 9 of the response, “This is different from ‘detect[ing], based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the mobile device, that a second user causes a state change of the mobile device that causes an event conflict condition with the user event’ as recited in amended claim 1. This is because Morgal’s detection relies on a communication link established when a vehicle is connected to a docking station, whereas amended claim 1 recites detection based on sensor data from sensors of the mobile device itself. A communication link between a vehicle and an external docking station is not ‘sensor data from one or more sensors of the mobile device’ because the detection in Morgal occurs through a database lookup at the docking station, and not through sensors on the device itself detecting a state change. Even if Morgal’s communication link could be characterized as involving a ‘logical sensor,’ which Applicant does not concede, amended claim 1 recites sensor data ‘from one or more sensors of the mobile device,’ (emphasis added) not from an external station or communication link with an external system. Morgal’s detection mechanism is fundamentally different because it requires the vehicle to be physically connected to a docking station before any conflict is detected, whereas amended claim 1 recites detection based on sensors of the mobile device itself, which can detect a state change without requiring connection to any external system. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of amended claim 1 and respectfully requests that the §102 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn for at least this reason.”
In response, paragraphs [0055-0056] and [0037-0038] illustrate that Morgal’s day user attempts to return the shared vehicle at the alternate workplace day station. However, the system notifies the day user that they are not allowed to return the shared vehicle to the alternate day station because of the agreement to return it to the workplace day station for later user by the distribution user. If the day user attempts to secure the shared vehicle to the alternate day station the day station may refuse to lock the shared vehicle. When a day user attempts to lock the shared vehicle to a day station a wired or a wireless communication link is established between the shared vehicle attempting to be returned and the day station whenever the locking receptacle at a day station is connected with the shared vehicle. That is, whenever the charge cord of the shared vehicle is detected as being plugged into the lock charge port, which used to (re)charge the shared vehicle’s battery, a wired or wireless communication link is established between the shared vehicle and the day station. From here the day station, or the shared vehicle itself, can determine that the shared vehicle is designated to be returned to a different day station by comparing shared identifying information communicated via the established wired or wireless communication link.
Paragraph [0021] in Applicant’s specification states that the sensors “are representative of functionality to detect various physical and/or logical phenomena in relation to the client device 102, such as motion, light, image detection and recognition, time and date, position, location, touch detection, sound, temperature, and so forth. Examples of the sensors 110 include hardware and/or logical sensors such as an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a camera, a microphone, a clock, biometric sensors, touch input sensors, position sensors, environmental sensors (e.g., for temperature, pressure, humidity, and so on), geographical location information sensors (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS) functionality), and so forth.”
Paragraph [0026] states “The device state module 120, for instance, receives sensor data from the sensors 110 to determine different state conditions of the client device 102, such as device location, identities of users in proximity to the client device 102, time of day, date, power state (e.g., battery charge level, charger connectivity, etc.), and so forth.”
With respect to Applicant’s comments concerning the sensor, not only does Morgal detect that the agreement to return it to the workplace day station for later user by the distribution user will be voided, such as via Applicant’s time and date, it detects a connection with the lock charging port, such as Applicant’s charger connectivity, and it also detects the shared vehicle is at the wrong day station via an identifying information comparison, such as via Applicant’s detection of logical phenomena or a change in location. Not even using the broadest reasonable interpretation, and using Applicant’s examples from the specification, Morgal clearly discloses “detect[ing], based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the mobile device, that a second user causes a state change of the mobile device that causes an event conflict condition with the user event”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, Applicant states “Morgal’s detection mechanism is fundamentally different because it requires the vehicle to be physically connected to a docking station before any conflict is detected, whereas amended claim 1 recites detection based on sensors of the mobile device itself, which can detect a state change without requiring connection to any external system.”
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the italicized features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “whereas amended claim 1 recites detection based on sensors of the mobile device itself, which can detect a state change without requiring connection to any external system.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts “Further, Morgal’s shared vehicles are not ‘mobile devices’ as recited in amended claim 1. Even if Morgal’s day-station kiosk could be a ‘hand-held media player,’ the kiosk is not the device that experiences the ‘state change’ that causes the ‘event conflict condition’ in Morgal's system (Morgal, [0119]). In Morgal, the conflict arises when a shared vehicle is returned to the wrong station, and the kiosk merely facilitates rental transactions. The kiosk does not have a ‘user event associated with a primary user’ that experiences an ‘event conflict condition’ caused by a ‘second user’ as recited in amended claim 1. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of amended claim 1 and respectfully requests that the §102 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn for at least this additional reason.”
In response, Morgal’s electric shared vehicles are mobile devices. Moreover, regarding Applicant’s concerns with primary and second users, Morgal’s distribution user corresponds to the primary user and the day users correspond to the second user. It is noted that the day users are bound by agreements or contracts that are created around the schedule of a distribution user. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Additionally, Morgal’s users are temporary renters of shared vehicles with no primary user or owner associated with any particular vehicle, whereas the proposed amendment to claim 1 recites a ‘primary user of the mobile device.’ Morgal’s distribution-users and day-users are both temporary renters who have no ownership or primary association with any particular vehicle. Rather, they simply have reservations to use shared vehicles in a rental fleet. A distribution-user’s reservation for a return trip does not make them a ‘primary user’ of the vehicle because the same vehicle may be reserved by different distribution-users on different days, and the distribution-user has no ongoing association with or ownership of that particular vehicle. In contrast, amended claim 1 recites a ‘primary user of the mobile device,’ which contemplates a user who has an ongoing association with the device, such as an owner of the device who has a user profile stored on the device. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of amended claim 1 and respectfully requests that the §102 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn for at least this additional reason.”
In response, as addressed above, Morgal’s day users are bound by agreements or contracts that are created around the schedule of a distribution user. For at least this reason, Morgal’s distribution user is a primary user and the day user is a second user. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states “For example, claim 2 stands rejected under §102 as anticipated by Morgal. In the interest of advancing prosecution and without conceding the propriety of the rejection, claim 2 is amended to recite ‘detect, based on sensor data from the one or more sensors of the mobile device, that an identity of the second user is different than an identity of the primary user.’ Applicant submits that the asserted references of record do not disclose, teach, or suggest the subject matter of this amendment.
Morgal identifies users through ‘a magnetic swipe card, a RFID card, or an iButton, or a Bluetooth enabled mobile phone or other medium capable of uniquely identifying one user from another’ and ‘a Personal Identification Number or PIN when renting a shared vehicle’ (Morgal, [0051]). This user identification in Morgal occurs at discrete rental transaction points, like when a user rents or returns a vehicle at a station, and not through sensors on the device detecting who is currently in possession of it. Even if Morgal’s PIN entry or ID card swipe is characterized as a form of user identification, this is not ‘sensor data from the one or more sensors of the mobile device’ as recited in amended claim 2. Morgal’s identification mechanism requires affirmative user input at a transaction point, whereas amended claim 2 recites detection of the second user’s identity ‘based on sensor data from the one or more sensors of the mobile device’ itself. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of amended claim 2 and respectfully requests that the §102 rejection of claim 2 be withdrawn.”
In response, Applicant identifies paragraph [0051] of Morgal for user identification. Paragraph [0051] states “A user already known by the shared vehicle system can present a user ID device to an ID device reader on the shared vehicle desired for rental”. The shared vehicle clearly identifies the distribution user and day user by “detect(ing), based on sensor data from the one or more sensors of the mobile device, that an identity of the second user is different than an identity of the primary user.” In addition, paragraph [0036] of Morgal states “The shared vehicle itself may have the ability to read the user ID device and communicate to a station computer either via a wired or wireless communication link enabling each vehicle to serve as the rental transaction site”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts “Additionally, claim 3 stands rejected under §102 as anticipated by Morgal. Claim 3 is amended to recite ‘the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is more than a threshold distance from the primary user.’ Applicant submits that the asserted references of record do not disclose, teach, or suggest the subject matter of this amendment.
Morgal detects when a vehicle is at the wrong day-station which is a fixed location in the rental network (Morgal, [0055] and [0056]). Morgal does not detect or measure the distance between the vehicle and any particular user. In Morgal, the conflict is determined by comparing the vehicle’s current station to the station where it is supposed to be returned, not by measuring the proximity between the vehicle and the distribution-user. Morgal has no concept of tracking where the distribution-user is physically located or determining whether the vehicle is within a threshold distance of that user. In contrast, amended claim 3 recites detecting that the mobile device is more than a threshold distance ‘from the primary user,’ which is a person whose location is tracked, rather than from a fixed station location. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of amended claim 3 and respectfully requests that the §102 rejection of claim 3 be withdrawn.”
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the italicized features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “amended claim 3 recites detecting that the mobile device is more than a threshold distance ‘from the primary user,’ which is a person whose location is tracked, rather than from a fixed station location”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, paragraph [0039] of Applicant’s specification, at best, describes indicating “a current location of the client device 102 and that provides navigation directions for placing the client device 102 in a suggested proximity to the user 128, e.g., a most recently detected position of the user 128.” A most recently detected position of the primary user clearly corresponds to Morgal knowing a most recently detected position of the distribution user at the day station (see [0053]).
Paragraphs [0068], [0079], [0082] and [0083] in Applicant’s Publication US 2025/0209903 A1 are the only paragraphs that refer to distance, and they provide no examples. Paragraphs [0015], [0024], [0026], [0028], [0032], [0033], [0034], [0038], [0039], [0045], [0050] and [0071-0072] are the only paragraphs that refer to proximity, and they provide limited examples.
For example, paragraph [0045] states “the device state module 120 detects that the user 214 interacts with the client device 102 to perform an action such as moving the client device 102 outside of a threshold proximity to the user 128…The device state module 120, for example, can utilize sensor data from the sensors 110 to detect various state information pertaining to the client device 102, such as an identity of a user interacting with and/or in possession of the client device 102 (e.g., whether the user is the user 128, the user 214, or a different user), a location of the client device 102”.
As outlined above, whatever type of sensor is used to determine location, which can be physical or logical, it detects a most recently detected position of the primary user which can correspond to Morgal knowing a most recently detected position at the day station (see [0053]). With respect to distance, Morgal’s day user can return the shared vehicle to the day station, a most recently detected position of the primary user, but be outside of its the wireless communication range (see [0044] | [0056]). This feature allows vehicles to be rented and returned at virtually any location within wireless communication range without relying upon an available open docking station. In this instance, the wireless communication range is not considered global because satellite communications are not utilized, the wireless communication range is considered local with respect to the day station. If Morgal’s day user attempts to self lock the vehicle outside of the communication range of the day station, the second user will be warned and be required to physically connect the shared vehicle to the appropriate day station or self lock within communication range of the appropriate day station. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further contends “Claim 6 also stands rejected under §102 as anticipated by Morgal. Claim 6 is amended to recite ‘the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is more than a threshold proximity from the primary user, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to move the mobile device to within the threshold proximity to the primary user.’ Applicant submits that the asserted references of record do not disclose, teach, or suggest the subject matter of this amendment.
Morgal detects when a vehicle is at the wrong day-station and provides ‘directions to return the shared vehicle to the appropriate day station’ (Morgal, [0055]). However, Morgal’s directions are to return the vehicle to a fixed station location, and not to move the device to within a threshold proximity of a user. Morgal has no concept of tracking the physical location of the distribution-user or measuring the proximity between the vehicle and that user. In contrast, amended claim 6 recites that the event state alarm indicates moving the mobile device ‘to within the threshold proximity to the primary user,’ which is a person whose location is tracked and not to a fixed station location as it is with Morgal. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of amended claim 6 and respectfully requests that the §102 rejection of claim 6 be withdrawn.”
In response, this argument has been addressed above with respect to claim 3. If Morgal’s day user attempts to self lock the vehicle outside of the communication range of the day station, the second user will be warned and be required to physically connect the shared vehicle to the appropriate day station or self lock within communication range of the appropriate day station. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts “Moreover, claim 8 stands rejected under §102 as anticipated by Morgal. Claim 8 is amended to recite ‘the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is not connected to a charging device, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to connect the mobile device to the charging device.’ Applicant submits that the asserted references of record do not disclose, teach, or suggest the subject matter of this amendment.
Morgal describes that day-stations have charging receptacles for vehicles and that a day-user may be directed to return a vehicle to the appropriate day station (Morgal, [0055] and [0059]). However, in Morgal, the conflict arises because the vehicle is at the wrong station, and not because the vehicle has been disconnected from a charger. Morgal’s system does not detect when a vehicle is disconnected from a charging device and then alert a user to reconnect it. Rather, Morgal detects when a vehicle is being returned to an incorrect station via a communication link established at docking (Morgal, [0056]). In contrast, claim 8 recites detecting that the mobile device ‘is not connected to a charging device’ as the state change, and the event state alarm comprises an indication ‘to connect the mobile device to the charging device.’ Morgal does not teach detecting disconnection from a charger as a state change that triggers an event conflict condition. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of claim 8 and respectfully requests that the § 102 rejection of claim 8 be withdrawn.”
In response, being connected to an incorrect charging device is the same as not connected to a charging device. Certain charging devices are permitted and others are not permitted to be used. If the day user attempts to connect to an incorrect day station or violate a distribution user’s schedule, the day station rental system via the shared vehicle’s display would deny the request to secure the shared vehicle at that charging receptacle and refuse to lock (see [0055] | [0059]). Moreover, Morgal states in some local systems docking stations are the preferred return location (see [0044]). That is, a vehicle could be self locked (within communication range), but not connected to a charging device of the day station. For at least these reasons, Morgal clearly teaches “the state change comprises an indication that the mobile device is not connected to a charging device, and wherein the event state alarm comprises an indication to connect the mobile device to the charging device.” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant finally argues “Claim 21 is added and Applicant submits that the subject matter of claim 21 is not described by the references of record. Claim 21 recites ‘the user event is stored in a user calendar or application associated with the primary user on the mobile device.’ Morgal’s alleged ‘user event’ is a vehicle rental reservation, and user account data is stored ‘in a central server computer, at a station computer on a local area network (LAN) or on a kiosk computer’ (Morgal, [0051]). While Morgal mentions that reservation data may be kept in the vehicle’s local memory, this is rental transaction data managed by the shared vehicle system, and not a user event stored in a user calendar or application associated with a user profile of the primary user (Morgal, [0060]). Morgal’s vehicles do not have user calendars or scheduling applications, and Morgal’s reservation data is not associated with a ‘primary user’ because the users in Morgal are temporary renters with no ongoing ownership or association with any particular vehicle. In contrast, claim 21 recites that ‘the user event is stored in a user calendar or application associated with the primary user on the mobile device,’ such as a calendar application tied to a user profile of the primary user of the device. Thus, Applicant submits that Morgal is missing the above-noted subject matter of new claim 21 and respectfully requests that the claims be indicated as allowable.”
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the italicized features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “While Morgal mentions that reservation data may be kept in the vehicle’s local memory, this is rental transaction data managed by the shared vehicle system, and not a user event stored in a user calendar or application associated with a user profile of the primary user (Morgal, [0060]). Morgal’s vehicles do not have user calendars or scheduling applications, and Morgal’s reservation data is not associated with a ‘primary user’ because the users in Morgal are temporary renters with no ongoing ownership or association with any particular vehicle.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, claim 21 minimally requires the user event is stored in an application associated with the primary user on the mobile device. Morgal states “The shared vehicle's registration schedule may be managed by storing each user’s entered data during rental transactions in a central server as communicated by the shared vehicle over a communication link or the reservation data may be kept in the shared vehicle's embedded microprocessor and local memory. The shared vehicle’s display may be programmed to warn the current day-user that the shared vehicle needs to be returned to the day station by a certain time.” (see [0060]). Note reservation data is tracked by the shared vehicle, or it can be tracked by the server. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689