DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on July 24, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, see the Claim Interpretation section, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Note that some claims no longer have prior art rejections.
Applicant first argues that the proposed amendments overcome the 101 claim rejections. Examiner disagrees. For example, simply displaying particular data content on a user terminal amounts to mere further abstract idea performed on generic computing components. Regarding the vehicle camera photographing surroundings when a user terminal is within a distance of the vehicle, this does not help because this amounts to abstract idea on generic computing component(s), plus insignificant extrasolution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See the 101 claim rejections, below in this Office action, for details.
Examiner believes that the amendments to the prior art claim rejections, below in this Office action, render Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art claim rejections to be not applicable.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that Claims 2-6 and 10 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “action management unit” in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 11-12, Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 recite(s):
- vehicle inspection authorization information management;
- determining whether predetermined creation conditions are met;
- wherein the parking information creation creates parking information containing a current parking position or a future parking start time and a parking position of an authorized vehicle when predetermined conditions are met, and outputs the parking information to the authorized vehicle information creation;
- the authorized vehicle information creation is configured to receive the parking information from the parking information creation, create authorized vehicle information containing vehicle information, a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle according to the parking information, and output the authorized vehicle information to a user who desires to inspect the authorized vehicle, and output vehicle information, the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle based on the authorized vehicle information;
- when the distance between the location of the user and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, output a command to capture a photographic image.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): creates an agreement between the parties; may be used for a compensated inspection transaction or as part of shopping for a vehicle;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): sets up for one party to inspect another party’s vehicle; each party may be a human.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; units; units which are formed by an information processing device including a processor and a nonvolatile memory; units; outputting via transmitting; user terminal; outputting via displaying; a display unit of the user terminal; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, wherein the program, when executed by a computer, executes a method: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because photographing the area around the vehicle does not meaningfully limit the overall procedure of setting up a vehicle inspection. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Mere Data Gathering:
Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).
Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012). See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle: See Matthews, US 20160291592 A1, paragraph [0002], which states: “Video cameras provided for capturing images of the surroundings of a remotely controlled vehicle have a number of known applications. In typical cases, a suitable video camera is mounted on the body of a remotely controlled vehicle based on a desired point of view (POV), and the images of the surroundings are transmitted to a remote location from which the operator, from a far distance, is able to issue commands for remotely controlling the vehicle in its surroundings. The transmitted images are typically presented to the operator on a display, and the operator manipulates one or more controller devices such as, for example, a joystick, a steering wheel, a pedal, or any other suitable controller device or combination of controller devices, to remotely control or navigate the vehicle based on what the operator sees.” Thus, “the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2 and 4-10, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- position detector (claims 2 and 4);
- navigation device (claim 5);
- display unit (claims 7-9);
- display (claims 7-9);
- operating selection button (claims 7-9);
- selection button (claims 7-9);
- input operation (claim 10).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 6 merely adds to the abstract idea by using charging reservation information to obtain parking information.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-12 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, US 20210117872 A1, in view of Amano, Japanese Patent Reference No. 2022-117170 (hereinafter referred to as Amano) (citations are to accompanying English machine translation), in further view of Wunsche, US 20200151467 A1, in further view of Tiderington, US 20200065869 A1.
As per Claims 1 and 12, Edwards discloses:
- a vehicle inspection authorization information management system, comprising an authorized vehicle information creation unit which is formed by an information processing device including a processor and a nonvolatile memory (Figure 1; paragraph [0020] (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example of a computing device 101 that may be used to implement one or more illustrative aspects discussed herein.”); paragraph [0022] (“As seen in FIG. 1, computing device 101 may include a processor 111, RAM 113, ROM 115, network interface 117, input/output interfaces 119 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, display, printer, etc.), and memory 121.”); paragraph [0024] (“The computer executable instructions may be stored on a computer readable medium such as a hard disk, optical disk, removable storage media, solid state memory, RAM, etc.”); paragraph [0027] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0033] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0034] (whole paragraph));
- the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to create authorized vehicle information containing vehicle information, transmit the authorized vehicle information to a user terminal possessed by a user who desires to inspect the authorized vehicle, and display vehicle information of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information (Figure 1; Figure 5; paragraph [0020] (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example of a computing device 101 that may be used to implement one or more illustrative aspects discussed herein.”); paragraph [0022] (“As seen in FIG. 1, computing device 101 may include a processor 111, RAM 113, ROM 115, network interface 117, input/output interfaces 119 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, display, printer, etc.), and memory 121.”); paragraph [0024] (“The computer executable instructions may be stored on a computer readable medium such as a hard disk, optical disk, removable storage media, solid state memory, RAM, etc.”); paragraph [0027] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0033] (whole paragraph; “The test drive provider may enter, in a vehicle information portion 410 of the user interface 400, a vehicle manufacturer, model and model year, for a vehicle that the test drive provider may allow others to test drive.”); paragraph [0034] (whole paragraph; “The information entered by the test drive provider is stored in a database of test drive providers, along with information of other test drive providers who have registered for the text drive provider service. As explained above, if there is a match of at least one test drive provider with a user requesting a particular vehicle to test drive, then the user may be notified of the match.”); paragraph [0039] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0058] (“In step 840, given that a comparable vehicle has been identified, the user is sent a message asking if they would like to test drive the comparable vehicle.”));
- a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, wherein the program, when executed by a computer, executes a vehicle inspection authorization method (paragraph [0007]; paragraph [0024]; paragraph [0033]).
Edwards fails to disclose a parking information creation unit, wherein the parking information creation unit is configured to create parking information containing a current parking position or a future parking start time and a parking position of an authorized vehicle when predetermined creation conditions are met, and transmit the parking information to the authorized vehicle information creation unit; the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to receive the parking information from the parking information creation unit, and create authorized vehicle information containing a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle according to the parking information; determining whether predetermined creation conditions are met. Amano discloses a parking information creation unit, wherein the parking information creation unit is configured to create parking information containing a current parking position or a future parking start time and a parking position of an authorized vehicle when predetermined creation conditions are met, and transmit the parking information to the authorized vehicle information creation unit (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet (“commuter user terminal”); third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…” (suburban user parks car in urban-located parking lot during day); fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…” (during daytime parking period, vehicle may be borrowed by other people); fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…” (contract; store commuting user information); paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet (transmit commuting schedule information to server; the inputting of the commuting schedule information and the clicking of “OK” can be viewed as predetermined creation conditions being met); sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet (“application software”); paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet (“end time of use when commuting to work” can be viewed as a future parking start time here; “the urban parking lot used when coming to work” can be viewed as the parking position here)); the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to receive the parking information from the parking information creation unit, and create authorized vehicle information containing a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle according to the parking information (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet (“commuter user terminal”); third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…” (suburban user parks car in urban-located parking lot during day); fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…” (during daytime parking period, vehicle may be borrowed by other people); fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…” (contract; store commuting user information); paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet (transmit commuting schedule information to server); sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet (“application software”); paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet (“end time of use when commuting to work” can be viewed as a future parking start time here; “the urban parking lot used when coming to work” can be viewed as the parking position here; “the start time of use when leaving work” can be viewed as a parking end time here)); determining whether predetermined creation conditions are met (paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet (the inputting of the commuting schedule information and the clicking of “OK” can be viewed as predetermined creation conditions being met)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Edwards such that the invention includes a parking information creation unit, wherein the parking information creation unit is configured to create parking information containing a current parking position or a future parking start time and a parking position of an authorized vehicle when predetermined creation conditions are met, and transmit the parking information to the authorized vehicle information creation unit; the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to receive the parking information from the parking information creation unit, and create authorized vehicle information containing a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle according to the parking information; and the invention determines whether predetermined creation conditions are met, as disclosed by Amano, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Edwards fails to disclose an action management unit, wherein the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and when the distance between the location of the user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle. Wunsche discloses an action management unit, wherein the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and when the distance between the location of the user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle (Figure 5; Figure 8; paragraph [0035] (“The portable device 10 may be any device that is configured to transmit and receive wireless signals, such as a smartphone, smartwatch, wearable electronic device, key fob, tablet device, laptop device, a Bluetooth-enabled device, or other device associated with a user 20 and capable of wireless communication.”); paragraph [0048] (much of the paragraph); paragraphs [0054]-[0055] (much of these paragraphs)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Edwards such that the invention includes an action management unit, wherein the action management unit communicates with the authorized vehicle, and when the distance between the location of the user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, causes a photographic image of a surrounding area to be captured by using an onboard camera provided on the authorized vehicle, as disclosed by Wunsche, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Edwards fails to disclose the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to display the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information. Tiderington discloses the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to display the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information (Figure 1; paragraph [0047] (“In one embodiment, the personal SRWC device 90 may be a shared ride member device and can be used by a shared ride member, which is a person that is participating in a shared ride as a customer (or someone agreeing to provide payment or other consideration to participate in a shared ride).”); paragraph [0048] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0076]; paragraph [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Edwards such that the authorized vehicle information creation unit is configured to display the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information, as disclosed by Tiderington, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 7, Edwards further discloses wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface is provided with a display unit and is configured to display a selection button for permitting or prohibiting authorization of a vehicle for participation on the display unit, authorization of a vehicle for participation being prohibited when prohibition is selected by operating the selection button (Figure 4; paragraph [0033]).
The modified Edwards fails to disclose wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which creates the parking information when a vehicle is authorized for participation. Amano further discloses wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which creates the parking information when a vehicle is authorized for participation (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet; third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…”; fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…”; fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…”; paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet; sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet; paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Edwards such that the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which creates the parking information when a vehicle is authorized for participation, as disclosed by Amano, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, Edwards further discloses wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface is provided with a display unit, and is configured to display a selection button on the display unit for permitting or prohibiting transmission of the authorization of a vehicle for participation information to the authorized vehicle information creation unit, transmission of the authorization of a vehicle for participation information to the authorized vehicle information creation unit being prohibited when prohibition is selected by operating the button (Figure 1; Figure 4; paragraphs [0020]-[0026]; paragraph [0033]).
The modified Edwards fails to disclose wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which includes the parking information in the authorization of a vehicle for participation information. Amano further discloses wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which includes the parking information in the authorization of a vehicle for participation information (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet; third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…”; fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…”; fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…”; paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet; sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet; paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Edwards such that the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which includes the parking information in the authorization of a vehicle for participation information, as disclosed by Amano, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 9, Edwards further discloses wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface is configured to display the selection button on the display unit when the authorization of a vehicle for participation information was created (Figure 1; Figure 4; paragraphs [0020]-[0026]; paragraph [0033]).
The modified Edwards fails to disclose wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which includes the parking information in the authorization of a vehicle for participation information. Amano further discloses wherein the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which includes the parking information in the authorization of a vehicle for participation information (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet; third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…”; fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…”; fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…”; paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet; sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet; paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Edwards such that the authorized vehicle provider interface includes the parking information creation unit which includes the parking information in the authorization of a vehicle for participation information, as disclosed by Amano, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Amano in further view of Tiderington.
As per Claim 11, Edwards discloses:
- a vehicle inspection authorization method (Figure 1; paragraph [0020] (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example of a computing device 101 that may be used to implement one or more illustrative aspects discussed herein.”); paragraph [0022] (“As seen in FIG. 1, computing device 101 may include a processor 111, RAM 113, ROM 115, network interface 117, input/output interfaces 119 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, display, printer, etc.), and memory 121.”); paragraph [0024] (“The computer executable instructions may be stored on a computer readable medium such as a hard disk, optical disk, removable storage media, solid state memory, RAM, etc.”); paragraph [0027] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0033] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0034] (whole paragraph));
- creating authorized vehicle information containing vehicle information, transmitting the authorized vehicle information to a user terminal possessed by a user who desires to inspect the authorized vehicle, and displaying vehicle information of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information (Figure 1; Figure 5; paragraph [0020] (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example of a computing device 101 that may be used to implement one or more illustrative aspects discussed herein.”); paragraph [0022] (“As seen in FIG. 1, computing device 101 may include a processor 111, RAM 113, ROM 115, network interface 117, input/output interfaces 119 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, display, printer, etc.), and memory 121.”); paragraph [0024] (“The computer executable instructions may be stored on a computer readable medium such as a hard disk, optical disk, removable storage media, solid state memory, RAM, etc.”); paragraph [0027] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0033] (whole paragraph; “The test drive provider may enter, in a vehicle information portion 410 of the user interface 400, a vehicle manufacturer, model and model year, for a vehicle that the test drive provider may allow others to test drive.”); paragraph [0034] (whole paragraph; “The information entered by the test drive provider is stored in a database of test drive providers, along with information of other test drive providers who have registered for the text drive provider service. As explained above, if there is a match of at least one test drive provider with a user requesting a particular vehicle to test drive, then the user may be notified of the match.”); paragraph [0039] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0058] (“In step 840, given that a comparable vehicle has been identified, the user is sent a message asking if they would like to test drive the comparable vehicle.”)).
Edwards fails to disclose creating parking information containing a current parking position of the authorized vehicle or a future parking start time and a parking position when predetermined creation conditions are met; creating authorized vehicle information containing a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle based on the parking information; determining whether predetermined creation conditions are met; communicating with the authorized vehicle. Amano discloses creating parking information containing a current parking position of the authorized vehicle or a future parking start time and a parking position when predetermined creation conditions are met (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet (“commuter user terminal”); third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…” (suburban user parks car in urban-located parking lot during day); fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…” (during daytime parking period, vehicle may be borrowed by other people); fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…” (contract; store commuting user information); paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet (transmit commuting schedule information to server; the inputting of the commuting schedule information and the clicking of “OK” can be viewed as predetermined creation conditions being met); sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet (“application software”); paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet (“end time of use when commuting to work” can be viewed as a future parking start time here; “the urban parking lot used when coming to work” can be viewed as the parking position here)); creating authorized vehicle information containing a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle based on the parking information (second sheet, partial paragraph at end of sheet (“commuter user terminal”); third sheet, paragraph beginning with “The commuter user terminal…” (suburban user parks car in urban-located parking lot during day); fourth sheet, paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3…” (during daytime parking period, vehicle may be borrowed by other people); fifth sheet, paragraph beginning with “First, a contract…” (contract; store commuting user information); paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet (transmit commuting schedule information to server); sixth sheet, partial paragraph at top of sheet (“application software”); paragraph that starts at bottom of eighth sheet and finishes at top of ninth sheet (“end time of use when commuting to work” can be viewed as a future parking start time here; “the urban parking lot used when coming to work” can be viewed as the parking position here; “the start time of use when leaving work” can be viewed as a parking end time here)); determining whether predetermined creation conditions are met (paragraph that starts at bottom of fifth sheet and finishes at top of sixth sheet (the inputting of the commuting schedule information and the clicking of “OK” can be viewed as predetermined creation conditions being met)); communicating with the authorized vehicle (paragraph that starts at the bottom of the fourth sheet and continues to the top of the fifth sheet (command processing unit 73 is part of the server); twelfth sheet, paragraph beginning with “As an unlocking process” (command processing unit 73 communicates with vehicle mounted device 112)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Edwards such that the invention creates parking information containing a current parking position of the authorized vehicle or a future parking start time and a parking position when predetermined creation conditions are met; the invention creates authorized vehicle information containing a parking position, an authorization start time and an authorization end time of the authorized vehicle based on the parking information; the invention determines whether predetermined creation conditions are met; and the invention communicates with the authorized vehicle, as disclosed by Amano, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Edwards fails to disclose displaying the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information. Tiderington discloses displaying the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information (Figure 1; paragraph [0047] (“In one embodiment, the personal SRWC device 90 may be a shared ride member device and can be used by a shared ride member, which is a person that is participating in a shared ride as a customer (or someone agreeing to provide payment or other consideration to participate in a shared ride).”); paragraph [0048] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0076]; paragraph [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Edwards such that the invention displays the parking position, the authorization start time, and the authorization end time of the authorization vehicle on a display unit of the user terminal based on the authorized vehicle information, as disclosed by Tiderington, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable