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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/24/2025. Claims 7-9 are newly added. Claims 1 and 5-6 are amended. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a machine, independent claim 5 is directed to a method, and independent claim 6 is directed to a machine. Therefore, each of the independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-4 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claim(s), under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation(s) cover(s) certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 5 is used for illustration:
A vehicle access control method by a mobility service base server including a first database that is generated for each vehicle based on vehicle data provided by an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle and stores a plurality of shadows representing state of the vehicle at a specific time, an interface unit configured to receive an access request from an outside device, and at least one processor with a memory storing computer program code that is configured to search, as a unit, for the plurality of shadows stored in the first database using an index, the vehicle access control method comprising:
in response to receiving the access request for the vehicle via the interface unit, performing wireless communication with the in-vehicle device mounted on a target vehicle, which is the vehicle to be accessed, and transmitting a control instruction according to the access request;
when the access request is received, determining according to the state of the target vehicle stored in the first database, a necessary instruction for executing the control instruction on the target vehicle, or an unnecessary instruction as a control instruction that would be ineffective even when transmitted to the target vehicle via wireless communication (A human with access to data indicating the state of the vehicle and an access request could determine whether a given control instruction was necessary or unnecessary to execute, e.g. determining whether a lock should be unlocked in response to an unlock request depending on whether it is already unlocked or not.).; and
transmitting the necessary instruction to the target vehicle thereby causing control of the vehicle to be executed according to the control instruction;
wherein the control instruction includes at least one of requesting an operation of the in-vehicle device or retrieving data from the in-vehicle device and the in-vehicle device includes at least one of a door, a lamp, an acoustic device, an air-conditioning system, or a sensor.
As explained above, independent claim 5 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim(s), claim(s) 1 and 6, which is/are similar in scope to claim 5 likewise recite(s) at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application"; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 5, and 6 recite additional elements. These/this limitation(s) amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
Mobility base server… found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
interface unit… found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
in-vehicle device… found in independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6. This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
vehicle control unit… found in independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6. This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program found in independent claim(s) 6. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
plurality of shadows… found in independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution inactivity.
receive an access request from [an] outside… found in independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution inactivity.
transmit a control instruction… found in independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution inactivity.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the limitation(s) recited above is/are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of a computer is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, because the specification does not provide any indication that the server and computer-readable storage medium is/are anything more than conventional computer(s). Additionally, the remaining element(s) has/have been deemed insignificant extra-solution activity by one or more courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
plurality of shadows… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Mere data gathering).
receive an access request from [an] outside… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
transmit a control instruction… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-4, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-4 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious US 20220044506 A1, hereinafter “Dewey”, in view of US 20220306226 A1, hereinafter “Miller” and NPL document “Database index”, hereinafter “Wikipedia”.
Regarding claim 1, Dewey discloses A base server (See [0021], the communication device can be a server.) comprising:
a first database storing a plurality of shadows each of which represents a state of an accessible object at a specific time, each of the plurality of shadows being generated for the accessible object based on device data provided from a device mounted on the accessible object (See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state. The locking mechanism, which is part of the locker, replies with a successful unlock. The reply is used to set the locker’s state in the database. See [0095], the locker unit comprises sensors that receive input. Examiner asserts that a successful unlock can only be determined by use of sensors, otherwise the locker replies with a successful unlock at random.) ;
an interface unit configured to receive an access request from an outside device (See [0033], the user requests to open a locker using a mobile device, i.e. an outside device. The request is received by the communication device. This means that the communication device comprises an interface unit for receiving the request.); and
at least one processor with a memory storing computer program code that is configured to search, as a unit, for the plurality of shadows stored in the first database (See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state.):
wherein:
the unit further includes an object access unit configured to, when the interface unit receives the access request for the accessible object, perform wireless communication with the in-object device mounted on a target object, which is the accessible object to be accessed, and transmit a control instruction according to the access request (See [0033], the user requests to open a locker using a mobile device, i.e. transmits an access request. The request is received by the communication device. This means that the communication device comprises an interface unit for receiving the request. The locker is unlocked in response to the communication unit’s communication. This means the communication comprises a control instruction. See [0047] the communication device’s communications can be wireless.);
the object access unit is configured to, when the access request is received, determine, according to the state of the accessible object stored in the first database, a necessary instruction for executing the control instruction on the target object, or an unnecessary instruction as a control instruction that would be ineffective even when transmitted to the target object via wireless communication (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the necessary control instruction. The communication device determines if the locker is already unlocked, i.e. is an unnecessary instruction, and displays an error message if it is.);
the object access unit transmits the necessary instruction to the target object thereby causing control of the target object to be executed according to the control instruction (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the necessary control instruction. The locking mechanism replies with a successful unlock, indicating that the lock was unlocked, i.e. the control instruction was executed.); and
the control instruction includes at least one of requesting an operation of the in-object device or retrieving data from the in-object device and the in-object device includes at least one of a door, a lamp, an acoustic device, an air-conditioning system, or a sensor (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the control instruction. The locking mechanism corresponding to the unlock request is an in-object device. This is requesting operation of the in-object device.).
Dewey does not explicitly disclose A mobility service base server; a plurality of shadows each of which represents a state of a vehicle; search using an index; a vehicle control unit; to the target vehicle; or in-vehicle device.
Miller renders obvious A mobility service base server (See [0030], the device enables a network of connected bikes in communication with a central server, i.e. a mobility service base server);
a plurality of shadows each of which represents a state of a vehicle (See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle. Lock status is a state of the bicycle at a specific time and therefore a shadow.);
a vehicle control unit (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. Requests over wireless communication are inherently received by a receiver corresponding to the transmission protocol, which is an interface unit. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock. This is control of part of the vehicle. The corresponding structure of the invention is therefore a vehicle control unit.);
to the target vehicle (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock, which necessarily required a control instruction from the lock module to the actuator. This means that the control instruction is sent to the target vehicle.); and
in-vehicle device (See [0015], the databases can be located within the controller. See [0028], the controller is mounted to the bicycle. The controller is therefore a vehicle-side unit including a first database. See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey to include its use for control of bike locks of Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve security of bicycles and allow remote control of security features, as suggested by Miller at [0036] and [0002]-[0005].
Dewey combined with Miller does not explicitly disclose search using an index.
Wikipedia renders obvious search using an index (See page 1 paragraph 1, indexes can be used to allow for fasting searching of databases.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of bike locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey and Miller to include use of a index for searching the database corresponding to the lock state, as suggested by Wikipedia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve speed when searching the database of the vehicle’s state, including the lock state, as suggested by Wikipedia at page 1 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 4, Dewey combined with Miller, and Wikipedia renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dewey discloses the first database includes a corresponding data that is the object data having a value according to the state of the accessible object changing before and after executing control according to the control instruction (See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state. The locking mechanism, which is part of the locker, replies with a successful unlock. The reply is used to set the locker’s state in the database.); the object access unit is configured to cancel transmission of the control instruction to the target object when the corresponding data indicates a value after execution of the control according to the control instruction (See [0033], the system checks the locker state in a database and sends an unlock request if the corresponding lock is in a locked state and a lock request if the locker is in an unlocked state. This is canceling transmission of the control instruction.), and
the object access unit further includes a notification unit is configured to return to the interface unit a completion notification indicating that the control according to the control instruction has been completed (See [0032], the locker unit displays its current state after each request from a user. A change in the state is equivalent to an indication of completion of control instruction, i.e. lock or unlock. The communication unit, i.e. interface unit, updates the display, indicating it receives the notification of completion.).
Miller renders obvious vehicle data (See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle. Lock status is a state of the bicycle at a specific time and therefore vehicle data.);
state of the vehicle (See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle. Lock status is a state of the bicycle at a specific time.); and
vehicle control unit (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. Requests over wireless communication are inherently received by a receiver corresponding to the transmission protocol, which is an interface unit. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock. This is control of part of the vehicle. The corresponding structure of the invention is therefore a vehicle control unit). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey and Wikipedia to include its use for control of bike locks of Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve security of bicycles and allow remote control of security features, as suggested by Miller at [0036] and [0002]-[0005].
Regarding claim 5, Dewey discloses An access control method by a base server (See [0021], the communication device can be a server. See Abstract, the invention controls locks, i.e. access, of a locker.) including:
a first database that is generated for each vehicle based on accessible object state data provided by a device mounted on the accessible object and stores a plurality of shadows representing state of the accessible object at a specific time, (See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state. The locking mechanism, which is part of the locker, replies with a successful unlock. The reply is used to set the locker’s state in the database. This is data from a device mounted on the accessible object.) ;
an interface unit configured to receive an access request from an outside device (See [0033], the user requests to open a locker using a mobile device, i.e. an outside device. The request is received by the communication device. This means that the communication device comprises an interface unit for receiving the request.); and
at least one processor with a memory storing computer program code that is configured to search, as a unit, for the plurality of shadows stored in the first database See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state.):
the vehicle access control method comprising:
in response to receiving the access request for the accessible object via the interface unit, performing wireless communication with the device mounted on a target object, which is the object to be accessed, and transmitting a control instruction according to the access request (See [0033], the user requests to open a locker using a mobile device, i.e. transmits an access request. The request is received by the communication device. This means that the communication device comprises an interface unit for receiving the request. The locker is unlocked in response to the communication unit’s communication. This means the communication comprises a control instruction. See [0047] the communication device’s communications can be wireless.);
when the access request is received, determining according to the state of the target object stored in the first database, a necessary instruction for executing the control instruction on the target object, or an unnecessary instruction as a control instruction that would be ineffective even when transmitted to the target object via wireless communication (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the necessary control instruction. The communication device determines if the locker is already unlocked, i.e. is an unnecessary instruction, and displays an error message if it is.); and
and transmitting the necessary instruction to the target object thereby causing control of the object to be executed according to the control instruction (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the necessary control instruction. The locking mechanism replies with a successful unlock, indicating that the lock was unlocked, i.e. the control instruction was executed.);
wherein the control instruction includes at least one of requesting an operation of the in-object device or retrieving data from the in-object device and the in in-object device includes at least one of a door, a lamp, an acoustic device, an air-conditioning system, or a sensor (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the control instruction. The locking mechanism corresponding to the unlock request is an in-object device. This is requesting operation of the in-object device.).
Dewey does not explicitly disclose A vehicle access control method by a mobility service base server; vehicle data provided by an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle; search using an index; a vehicle control unit; to the target vehicle; or in-vehicle device.
Miller renders obvious A vehicle access control method by a mobility service base server (See [0030], the device enables a network of connected bikes in communication with a central server, i.e. a mobility service base server. See [0155]-[0156], the invention is used to lock and unlock a vehicle, i.e. is an access control method.);
a plurality of shadows each of which represents a state of a vehicle (See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle. Lock status is a state of the bicycle at a specific time and therefore a shadow.);
a vehicle control unit (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. Requests over wireless communication are inherently received by a receiver corresponding to the transmission protocol, which is an interface unit. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock. This is control of part of the vehicle. The corresponding structure of the invention is therefore a vehicle control unit.);
to the target vehicle (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock, which necessarily required a control instruction from the lock module to the actuator. This means that the control instruction is sent to the target vehicle.); and
in-vehicle device (See [0015], the databases can be located within the controller. See [0028], the controller is mounted to the bicycle. The controller is therefore a vehicle-side unit including a first database. See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey to include its use for control of bike locks of Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve security of bicycles and allow remote control of security features, as suggested by Miller at [0036] and [0002]-[0005].
Dewey combined with Miller does not explicitly disclose search using an index.
Wikipedia renders obvious search using an index (See page 1 paragraph 1, indexes can be used to allow for fasting searching of databases.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of bike locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey and Miller to include use of a index for searching the database corresponding to the lock state, as suggested by Wikipedia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve speed when searching the database of the vehicle’s state, including the lock state, as suggested by Wikipedia at page 1 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 6, Dewey discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer configuring a mobility service base server (See [0021], the communication device can be a server. See Abstract, the invention controls locks, i.e. access, of a locker. See [0012], the functionality is implemented as a program on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.) together with a first database that is generated for each vehicle based on accessible object state data provided by a device mounted on the accessible object and stores a plurality of shadows representing state of the accessible object at a specific time, (See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state. The locking mechanism, which is part of the locker, replies with a successful unlock. The reply is used to set the locker’s state in the database. This is data from a device mounted on the accessible object.)
an interface unit configured to receive an access request from an outside device (See [0033], the user requests to open a locker using a mobile device, i.e. an outside device. The request is received by the communication device. This means that the communication device comprises an interface unit for receiving the request.); and
at least one processor with a memory storing computer program code that is configured to search, as a unit, for the plurality of shadows stored in the first database See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state.):
the program causing the computer to perform operations comprising:
in response to receiving the access request for the accessible object via the interface unit, performing wireless communication with the device mounted on a target object, which is the object to be accessed, and transmitting a control instruction according to the access request (See [0033], the user requests to open a locker using a mobile device, i.e. transmits an access request. The request is received by the communication device. This means that the communication device comprises an interface unit for receiving the request. The locker is unlocked in response to the communication unit’s communication. This means the communication comprises a control instruction. See [0047] the communication device’s communications can be wireless.);
when the access request is received, determining according to the state of the target object stored in the first database, a necessary instruction for executing the control instruction on the target object, or an unnecessary instruction as a control instruction that would be ineffective even when transmitted to the target object via wireless communication (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the necessary control instruction. The communication device determines if the locker is already unlocked, i.e. is an unnecessary instruction, and displays an error message if it is.); and
and transmitting the necessary instruction to the target object thereby causing control of the object to be executed according to the control instruction (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the necessary control instruction. The locking mechanism replies with a successful unlock, indicating that the lock was unlocked, i.e. the control instruction was executed.);
wherein the control instruction includes at least one of requesting an operation of the in-object device or retrieving data from the in-object device and the in in-object device includes at least one of a door, a lamp, an acoustic device, an air-conditioning system, or a sensor (See [0033], the communication device receives the user request to open the locker door. The communication device checks the locker state and sends an unlock request to the locker if the locker state is set to locked, i.e. determines if the control instruction is necessary, and then sends the control instruction. The locking mechanism corresponding to the unlock request is an in-object device. This is requesting operation of the in-object device.).
Dewey does not explicitly disclose mobility service base server; vehicle data provided by an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle; search using an index; a vehicle control unit; to the target vehicle; or in-vehicle device.
Miller renders obvious mobility service base server (See [0030], the device enables a network of connected bikes in communication with a central server, i.e. a mobility service base server. See [0155]-[0156], the invention is used to lock and unlock a vehicle, i.e. is an access control method.);
a plurality of shadows each of which represents a state of a vehicle (See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle. Lock status is a state of the bicycle at a specific time and therefore a shadow.);
a vehicle control unit (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. Requests over wireless communication are inherently received by a receiver corresponding to the transmission protocol, which is an interface unit. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock. This is control of part of the vehicle. The corresponding structure of the invention is therefore a vehicle control unit.);
to the target vehicle (See [0155]-[0156], the lock module receives an unlock request from the user via mobile application, i.e. receives the access request. In response, the lock module causes the lock to actuate and lock/unlock, which necessarily required a control instruction from the lock module to the actuator. This means that the control instruction is sent to the target vehicle.); and
in-vehicle device (See [0015], the databases can be located within the controller. See [0028], the controller is mounted to the bicycle. The controller is therefore a vehicle-side unit including a first database. See [0157], a database stores lock status of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey to include its use for control of bike locks of Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve security of bicycles and allow remote control of security features, as suggested by Miller at [0036] and [0002]-[0005].
Dewey combined with Miller does not explicitly disclose search using an index.
Wikipedia renders obvious search using an index (See page 1 paragraph 1, indexes can be used to allow for fasting searching of databases.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of bike locking mechanisms disclosed by Dewey and Miller to include use of a index for searching the database corresponding to the lock state, as suggested by Wikipedia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve speed when searching the database of the vehicle’s state, including the lock state, as suggested by Wikipedia at page 1 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 9, Examiner has argued for the obviousness of claim 1 without reference to the sensor using the at least one of statement in the final clause. Claim 9 is therefore obvious by the same argument as claim 1.
For clarity and not as a formal rejection argument, Examiner notes that GPS information is requested by the decision engine in Miller (See [0136], the context database contains the current location of the bicycle. See [0148], the context database contains a lock history of the bicycle. See [0115], the context database (727) can be located on the lock, i.e. is mounted on the vehicle. See [0144]-[0149] the context data is requested and used to make unlocking decisions.).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dewey, Miller, and Wikipedia in view of CN 202970174 U, hereinafter “Hua”.
Regarding claim 2, Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia does not explicitly disclose the first database has startup status information indicating whether the target vehicle is in a first state in which control according to the control instruction is executable or the target vehicle is in a second state in which the control according to the control instruction is not executable, or the vehicle control unit further includes a preliminary control execution unit configured to execute a preliminary control to transition the target vehicle to the first state before transmitting the control instruction according to the access request when the startup status information is the second state. Hua, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious startup status information indicating whether the target vehicle is in a first state in which control according to the control instruction is executable or the target vehicle is in a second state in which the control according to the control instruction is not executable (See [0009], the intelligent lock (smart lock) comprises a low-frequency awakening function with low power consumption. The smart lock necessarily keeps track of whether it is operating in the low-power mode awaiting wake-up command, which is status information. See [0010], operating the lock is not executable until the smart lock is woken up. The lock first wakes up the high-frequency receiver for authentication. The lock then authenticates the ID of the sender through a high-frequency signal. The lock is then opened. This means that the control, i.e. unlocking the lock, is not executable while the smart lock is in the second state, i.e. the high-frequency receiving module is not active and authentication has not occurred, and is executable when the smart lock is in the first state, i.e. the high-frequency receiving module is active, and authentication has occurred.), and
the vehicle control unit further includes a preliminary control execution unit configured to execute a preliminary control to transition the target vehicle to the first state before transmitting the control instruction according to the access request when the startup status information is the second state (See [0010], while the lock is in the second state, i.e. the low-power mode where only the low-frequency receiver is active, after receiving the low-frequency wakeup signal, which is part of the access request, i.e. unlocking the lock, the relay module sends the wireless wake-up command to the main control unit, which wakes up the main control unit of the lock. This is a preliminary control that transitions the smart lock to the first state, which also means that the relay module is a preliminary control execution unit. ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for bike lock management and communication disclosed by Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia to include the two modes for lock management of Hua. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because low-frequency listening for a wake-up signal before activating high-frequency communication for authentication and communication lowers battery power consumption, as suggested by Hua at Abstract. Miller combined with Hua does not explicitly disclose the first database has startup status information. Dewey renders obvious the first database has startup status information (See [0033], the communication device queries a database to determine the state of the locker, i.e. the accessible object. The database entry specifying the state of the locker at the current time is the shadow representing its state. The locking mechanism, which is part of the locker, replies with a successful unlock. The reply is used to set the locker’s state in the database. See [0035], the communication device uses sleep mode to extend battery life. See [0037], the locking mechanism, i.e. lock, can also be battery powered.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for bike lock management and communication, including low-frequency listening for wake-up signals, disclosed by Miller and Hua to include the storing in a database of the status of the lock, i.e. listening for wake-up signal or awake, as suggested by Dewey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because storing the information in the database allows it to easily be used by various systems in determining actions for the lock’s operation, as suggested by Dewey at [0033].
Regarding claim 3, Dewey combined with Miller, Wikipedia, and Hua renders obvious the limitations of claim 2. Hua renders obvious the vehicle control unit is configured to transmit the control instruction after confirming that the vehicle has transitioned to the first state by referring to the startup status information after the preliminary control has been executed (See [0032], the intelligent lock, i.e. smart lock, first receives the waking-up control instruction, activates the high frequency receiving module, which comprises sending a control instruction to the high frequency receiving module, and checks whether the authentication is successful. Since the authentication is part of the start-up procedure, the authentication data is startup status information. If the authentication is successful, the executing mechanism receives a notification to open the lock, i.e. the control instruction. Determining that the authentication is successful is confirming that the lock has transitioned to the first state, i.e. the lock has been woken up and has authenticated the device it is in communication with.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for bike lock management and communication disclosed by Dewey, Miller, Wikipedia, and Hua to include the authentication procedure following the wakeup signal of Hua. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because to avoid unlocking by unauthorized users or devices, as suggested by Hua at [0029].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dewey, Miller, and Wikipedia in view of NPL document “Hierarchical database model”, hereinafter “Wikipedia2”.
Regarding claim 7, Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia does not explicitly disclose as a standardized and hierarchical data structure.
Wikipedia2 renders obvious as a standardized and hierarchical data structure (See page 1 paragraphs 1-2, data is stored in a hierarchical way, i.e. as a hierarchical data structure. See page 1 paragraph 2, each record only has one parent, i.e. the elements of the data structure are standardized.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for bike lock management and communication disclosed by Dewey, Miller, and Wikipedia, to include the use of a hierarchical database model of Wikipedia2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve performance and availability, as suggested by Wikipedia2 at page 2 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 8, Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia renders obvious the limitations of claim 1.
Miller renders obvious from a plurality of types of vehicle data acquired from an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle (See [0136], the context database contains the current location of the bicycle. See [0148], the context database contains a lock history of the bicycle. This is a plurality of types of vehicle data. See [0115], the context database (727) can be located on the lock, i.e. is mounted on the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for remote control of lock management disclosed by Dewey to include multiple types of data gathered from the vehicle to be managed of Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using multiple pieces of information can allow for better access decisions to be made, as suggested by Miller at [0144]-[0149].
Dewey combined with Miller and Wikipedia does not explicitly disclose the plurality of shadows is a group of data that has been standardized, hierarchized, and structured from a plurality of types of vehicle data acquired from an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle.
Wikipedia2 renders obvious the plurality of shadows is a group of data that has been standardized, hierarchized, and structured from a plurality of types (See page 1 paragraphs 1-2, data is stored in a hierarchical way, i.e. as a hierarchical data structure. See page 1 paragraph 2, each record only has one parent, i.e. the elements of the data structure are standardized. See Table 3 on page 2, containing the employee reporting structure. The table comprises multiple data types, specifically fields for an integer employee number (EmpNo and ReportsTo) and a string Designation field.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for bike lock management and communication disclosed by Dewey, Miller, and Wikipedia, to include the use of a hierarchical database model of Wikipedia2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve performance and availability, as suggested by Wikipedia2 at page 2 paragraph 1.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “CLAIM OBJECTION
Claim 1 stands objected to for informalities. Applicant has amended the claims to address the informalities and requests that the Examiner withdraw the objections.”
As to (A), Examiner agrees that the objections have been overcome.
(B) Applicant argues “REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Applicant traverses the
rejection. Claim 6 has been amended to clarify the end of the preamble of the claim with "comprising." As such, claim 6 is clear, definite, and in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Applicant requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection.”
As to (B), Examiner agrees that the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome.
(C) Applicant argues “REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant traverses the rejection.
Amended claim 1 recites that "the vehicle control unit transmits the necessary instruction to the target vehicle, thereby causing control of the vehicle to be executed according to the control instruction," the control instruction including at least one of requesting an operation of the in-vehicle device or retrieving data from the in-vehicle10
device and the in-vehicle device includes at least one of a door, a lamp, an acoustic device, an air-conditioning system, or a sensor.
The claim specifies a vehicle control unit configured to, when the interface unit receives an access request for a vehicle, perform wireless communication with the in- vehicle device mounted on the target vehicle and transmit a control instruction according to the access request. The vehicle control unit transmits only the necessary instruction to the target vehicle, thereby causing control of the vehicle to be executed according to the control instruction.
In this way, the claim incorporates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 recites patentable subject matter in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and likewise recite patentable subject matter. Similar features are also recited by claims 5 and 6, which likewise recite patentable subject matter.”
As to (C), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Requesting data from a sensor or vehicle system is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation specifically mentioned by Applicant does not guarantee requesting operation of the in-vehicle device. Further, operation of the in-vehicle device is not defined in sufficient detail to guarantee any specific mechanical operation is taken in response to the processing of the request.
(D) Applicant argues “REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1 and 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Miller, U.S. 2022/0306226. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Miller and Hua, CN 202970174. Applicant traverses the rejections.
The Office Action acknowledges that Miller does not explicitly disclose vehicle control unit is configured to determine necessary or unnecessary instruction for the target vehicle according to the state of the target vehicle stored in the first database when the access request is received.
In the above claim amendments, the meaning of "to determine necessary or unnecessary instruction" has been clarified. Specifically, the limitations "the vehicle control unit is configured to, when the access request is received, determine, according to the state of the target vehicle stored in the first database, a necessary instruction for executing the control instruction on the target vehicle, or an unnecessary instruction as a control instruction that would be ineffective even when transmitted to the target vehicle via wireless communication; and the vehicle control unit transmits the necessary instruction to the target vehicle, thereby causing control of the vehicle to be executed according to the control instruction" have been added.
The cited reference Miller describes a bike lock as communication hub for an electric bicycle. Miller describes a system in which a lock module receives an unlock request and actuates the locking mechanism. However, Miller does not disclose any process in which the server or control unit, before sending a control instruction to the vehicle, checks the current state of the vehicle (e.g., whether the lock is already unlocked) and, based on that state, determines whether the instruction would be effective or unnecessary.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 defines over the cited references. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and likewise define over the cited references. Similar limitations are also recited by claims 5 and 6, which likewise define over the cited references.”
As to (D), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 20210370876 A1 which relates to lock management of a vehicle using a mobile terminal.
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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1/30/26