Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/402,491

CONTROL METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND SERVER DEVICE

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jan 02, 2024
Examiner
LONG, MEREDITH A
Art Unit
3622
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allow Rate
173 granted / 403 resolved
-9.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§102
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 403 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 10 February 2026. Claims 1-12 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are currently pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 January 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment/Remarks The rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been remedied by amendment and are withdrawn. Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the amended claims of the present application generally relate to various embodiments for automatically managing and distributing vehicles amongst a plurality of hubs, by incentivizing users to achieve/satisfy requests for distributing such vehicles. Applicant respectfully submits that such features are neither fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, nor features relating to managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people.” Remarks at 15. Incentivizing users to participate in an activity, essentially doing a job for payment, is considered a commercial activity. Incentivizing users to do an activity rather than not do an activity is considered managing personal behavior. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the amended claims automatically distribute the vehicles amongst the plurality of hubs by using the current positions detected by the GPS sensors. In addition, the claims recite a specific manner for calculating the price of the reward to be paid to each of the users. Applicant respectfully submits that such features, as recited by the amended claims, improve the technical field and/or at least amount to meaningful limits of the claims (as evidenced by no prior art rejection being set forth).” Remarks at 16. As an initial manner, Applicant is arguing limitations not in the claims; the claims do not recite distributing the vehicles among the hubs, automatically or otherwise. Second, even if an abstract idea is recited in specific manner, this does not make it any less abstract. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-10 recite a method which is considered a process. Claim 11 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claim 12 recites a server device comprising a number of programs. While the specification indicates that the server device can include structure such as a processor (see [0058]), no structure is currently recited in claim 12. Thus, claim 12 fails step 1 as not being directed to any of the statutory categories, more particularly as being directed to a product that does not have a physical or tangible form (see MPEP 2106.03(I)). (Note that in previous office actions, Examiner was interpreting the server device itself as structure; after in-office consultation, it is determined that that a server device, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is not considered structure.) Step 2A-Prong One The claims recite the concept of gathering information about a number of vehicle and offering a paid reward to a user to move a vehicle (See “constructing a vehicle sharing system that includes the plurality of hubs, a server device, a user terminal, an administrator terminal, and a public server operating in conjunction with a communication circuit network; acquiring first information from the server device indicating a history of movement of the plurality of vehicles by each of the plurality of users; performing wireless communication between the server device and each of the plurality of vehicles to detect a current position of each of the plurality of vehicles, the current position of each of the plurality of vehicles being detected by the GPS sensor of each of the plurality of vehicles; periodically referring to the current position of each of the plurality of vehicles and automatically generating second information indicating a request to move a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles from a first hub of the plurality of hubs to a second hub of the plurality of hubs when a first current number of vehicles at the first hub is larger than a lower limit number and a second current number of vehicles at the second hub is smaller than the lower limit number; generating a price of a reward to be paid to each of the plurality of users when the request indicated by the second information is achieved, in accordance with a matching rate calculated as a degree of coincidence between the first information of each user and the second information; and notifying of the second information and information indicating the reward of each user” in claim 1, for example.). The concept includes ways of calculating the reward amount and ways of determining which users should be offered the reward (See “identifying one or more users having a history of movement from the first hub to the second hub based on the first information; and calculating, as the matching rate, for each of the one or more users, how high a degree of coincidence between movement content of a vehicle by each user based on the first information and the movement content of a vehicle based on the second information is among the one or more users, wherein in the notifying, each of the one or more users is notified of the second information and information indicating the reward of each user” in claim 2 and “wherein the price of the reward is lower as the matching rate is higher” in claim 3, for example.). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions and managing personal behavior. Thus, claims 1-12 recite an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A-Prong Two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 11) or a server device comprising a number of programs (claim 12) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium or the server device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 does not positively recite any additional elements. For example, the GPS sensor is not actively involved in any step. Additionally, no elements are actively performing the recited steps. Thus, no elements are analyzed at this step for claim 1 and its dependent claims. Step 2B The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0027632 (“Ise”): Ise discloses a vehicle dispatch system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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. /MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2024
Application Filed
May 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jul 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 31, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Jan 08, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 10, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12482019
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR POST TRANSACTION SEASONAL ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12450635
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR A UNIVERSAL INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR DATA ANALYTICS PIPELINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12443949
DATA SECURITY FOR TRANSACTIONS WITH SECURE OFFER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12424331
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING HEALTH TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12417848
PREDICTION TOOL FOR PATIENT IMMUNE RESPONSE TO A THERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+21.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 403 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month