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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on 12 January 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12 and New Claim 13 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 5 and 10 have been cancelled, where claim 5 was rolled into the independent claims 1, 11, and 12.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive, and with regards to claim 10 that was cancelled, are Moot. The claim interpretations according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive, and with regards to claim 10 that was cancelled, are Moot. The claim rejections according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive, and with regards to claim 10 that was cancelled, are Moot. The claim rejections according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and due to the cancellation of claim 10, are Moot. The claim rejection according to 35 U.S.C. § 1101 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-5 and 11-12 with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and claims 6-9 with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the amended claim language and the addition of claim 13.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10, the Applicant’s argument that Hanaoka does not disclose the superimposed display of a guideline on a photographing screen on the inspecting user’s terminal that also includes the outer shape of the vehicle from claims 1, 11, and 12, are not persuasive. Since the argument is made on matter not previously examined for these claims. the Examiner asserts that the root of this claim language was rolled into claim 1 (and claims 11 and 12) from claim 5, and therefore, the previously presented disclosure sections still apply from claim 5, which are not addressed in the arguments. While the original reference and citations from claim 5 are comprised of the limitations rolled from claim 5 into the independent claims, the Examiner has incorporated the additional reference citations from Sato along with the previous citations from Hanaoka. The addition of Sato is to cure the amended limitations not previously presented in claim 13 or in the limitations rolled into the independent claims from claim 5. The reference of Hanaoka implicitly discloses the limitations of the at least one guide line superimposed on the screen from which the photographing instrument is attached, superimposed on the photographing screen displayed on the user terminal. Hanaoka also implicitly discloses any message displayed on the photographing screen that may be superimposed on the viewing area over the photographing screen displayed on the user terminal, where a message may include guidelines or images imitating the outline of a vehicle and instructions in any manner indicating a photographing direction and position. The addition of Sato explicitly discloses at least the limitations of claim 13 and a figure imitating the outline of the vehicle needed for the amended independent claims and claim 13, that is both necessitated by amendment, and cures any remaining question posed regarding the sufficiency of the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Sato also discloses another reference as cited, to cover limitations that were implicitly disclosed by Hanaoka, in an explicit manner.
With regards to the reference from Todasco, since claim 10 was cancelled, the reference and associated citations were fully removed as Todasco is no longer required to show a prima facie case of obviousness over prior art. Therefore, Todasco is no longer being asserted as a reference for the claims after amendment.
The updated 103 rejections for the claims are found below, incorporating a new reference of Sato to heal any limitations that needed more clarity and removing Todasco due to the cancellation of claim 10, for the purposes of compact prosecution.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and due to the cancellation of claim 10, are Moot. The claim rejection according to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
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 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Hanaoka, US20220089127A1, in view of Sato, JP2020194481A.
Regarding Claim 1: Hanaoka discloses: A vehicle inspection authorization information management system, comprising an information processing device including a processor and a nonvolatile memory, wherein the processor is configured to; [0047] (a processor configured to);
communicate with an inspecting user terminal possessed by an inspecting user who wishes to inspect an authorized vehicle to transmit vehicle information, a parking position, and a parking start time and end time of the authorized vehicle to the inspecting user terminal, [0032] “in-vehicle communicating apparatus 23, transmits the vehicle information acquired by the in-vehicle sensors 21 described above to the terminal 1,” [0064] “the positional information of the vehicle 2…when the vehicle 2 travels or stops… the time for determining the arrival … the plan end-of-use time,” [0029] “a place on which vehicles 2 can be parked”
communicate with the inspecting user terminal to acquire a location of the inspecting user terminal from the inspecting user terminal and determine if a distance between a location of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, and [0062] “The detection unit 151 may detect the user approaching the vehicle 2 based on the position information of the vehicle 2 and the position information of the terminal 1,” [0059] “The detection unit 151 detects, at least, that the user has approached the vehicle 2 a predetermined distance or less.”
issue a photographing recommendation information to the inspecting user terminal to prompt photographing of the authorized vehicle by the inspecting user when the distance between the location of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than the first determination value. [0062] “when the estimated positional relationship satisfies a predetermined requirement,” [0113] “acquires a captured image of the reserved vehicle 2′… the information processing apparatus 15 displays a message on the display of the terminal 1 requesting the user to direct the imaging apparatus 14 (for example, a camera) to the reserved vehicle 2... so that the entire reserved vehicle 2′ is displayed.”
the photographing recommendation information includes at least one guideline indicating a photographing position and a photographing direction, [0053] (a display capable of outputting an image for display to the user that acts on the user’s vision, i.e. an overlay on the graphical user display, where an image may be a guideline), [0054-0055] (request for a user to perform a function to gather vehicle information including displaying vehicle information, where the information may implicitly be comprised of an outline image of the vehicle to be inspected as well as other information related to the vehicle), [0059-0062] (the system detects distance to vehicle, i.e. position and direction), [0113-0114] (requests user to direct the camera to the vehicle, where the vehicle image is captured when the orientation is placed such that the displayed directions, according to the content of the displayed image, where the directions and image that are displayed may implicitly incorporate guidelines and an outline of a vehicle, such that the directions disclose that the imaging sensors are lined up with the vehicle utilizing at least distance and position of the device to the vehicle.)
and the at least one guideline is displayed superimposed on a photographing screen displayed on the inspecting user terminal and is a figure imitating a vehicle. [0113-0114] (requests user to direct the camera to the vehicle, where the vehicle image is captured when the orientation is placed such that the displayed directions, according to the content of the displayed image, where the directions and image that are displayed may implicitly incorporate guidelines and an outline of a vehicle, such that the directions disclose that the imaging sensors are lined up with the vehicle utilizing at least distance and position of the device to the vehicle), [0132-0135] (the user is guided to the inspection target portion (instructed to move or to photograph) via instructions on screen including an image of the vehicle with directions to move, i.e. guidelines, the device to the proper orientation and distance from the superimposed item to capture the vehicle), [Figure 8B] and [0117] “Specifically, the information processing apparatus 15 superimposes figures having a color (for example, a fluorescent color) including components to be inspected on the component displayed on the display,” [0130] “s the positional information of each of the inspection target points with the estimated positional information of the user.”
Where Hanaoka does not disclose, Sato teaches: the at least one guideline is displayed superimposed on a photographing screen displayed on the inspecting user terminal and is a figure imitating the outer shape of a vehicle. [0030-0035 and 0056] (at least one guideline and/or the outline of a vehicle is displayed on an image capturing device user interface overlaying the capturing screen).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of Hanaoka and Sato to arrive at the instant application prior to the effective filing date. Both Hanaoka and Sato incorporate communications between a server system, user devices and vehicles as well as photographing vehicles according to direction and position including overlaying images on a device used for capturing the specific image. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Sato improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing including superimposition of the guidelines and outline of the vehicle to capture images of a vehicle, which expands upon the same feature in Hanoaka, but with the explicit disclosure of further details of the amended claims. This is a design improvement over the base device in the same way as the as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way as the base invention to achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2: Hanaoka discloses and Sato teaches: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 1,
Hanoaka discloses: wherein the processor is configured to notify the photographing recommendation information to the inspecting user terminal again after elapsing of a predetermined period from a preceding notification of the photographing recommendation information to the inspecting user terminal. [0126] “the process is repeated until it is determined that there is no unexecuted inspection item in step S642,” [0107] “time elapsed since the previous inspection operation”
Regarding Claim 3: Hanaoka discloses and Sato teaches: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 1,
Hanaoka discloses: wherein the processor is configured to cause an image acquired by the inspecting user terminal to be transmitted to the information processing device following a notification of the photographing recommendation information to the inspecting user terminal. [0143] “, the information processing apparatus 15 …includes an inspection result recording unit for transmitting information to the server 3, the information associating the inspection item provided to the user … with the vehicle information acquired by the inspection information acquirement unit” (i.e. pictures taken).
Regarding Claim 4: Hanaoka discloses and Sato teaches: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 3,
Hanaoka discloses: wherein the processor is configured to transmit an image acquired by the inspecting user terminal to the authorizing user terminal possessed by the authorizing user who owns the authorized vehicle. [0143] “, the information processing apparatus 15 …includes an inspection result recording unit for transmitting information to the server 3, the information associating the inspection item provided to the user … with the vehicle information acquired by the inspection information acquirement unit” (i.e. pictures taken), [0034] “transmits the vehicle information to the terminal 1,” and [0142] “Since the terminal 1 and the vehicle 2 can constitute the inspection system of the vehicle, the present invention can be applied between the user which is the owner of the vehicle 2 and the owned vehicle. As a result, the user can perform inspection operation with respect to not only the vehicle 2 used by an unspecified number of users but also the vehicle 2 used by a specific user.”
Regarding Claims 11 and 12: Hanaoka discloses and Sato teaches:
Hanaoka discloses: communicating with an inspecting user terminal possessed by an inspecting user who desires to inspect an authorized vehicle to transmit vehicle information of the authorized vehicle containing vehicle information, a parking position, a parking start time, and a parking end time of the authorized vehicle to the inspecting user terminal, [0065] “information acquirement unit 152,” [0032] “in-vehicle communicating apparatus 23, transmits the vehicle information acquired by the in-vehicle sensors 21 described above to the terminal 1,” [0064] “the positional information of the vehicle 2…when the vehicle 2 travels or stops… the time for determining the arrival … the plan end-of-use time,” [0029] “a place on which vehicles 2 can be parked”
acquiring a position of the inspecting user terminal from the inspecting user terminal by communicating with the inspecting user terminal to determine if a distance between a position of the inspecting user and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, and [0062] “The detection unit 151 may detect the user approaching the vehicle 2 based on the position information of the vehicle 2 and the position information of the terminal 1,” [0059] “The detection unit 151 detects, at least, that the user has approached the vehicle 2 a predetermined distance or less.”
notifying photographing recommendation information to the inspecting user terminal to prompt the inspecting user terminal to photograph the authorized vehicle when the distance between the position of the inspecting user and the parking position is equal to or less than the first determination value. [0062] “when the estimated positional relationship satisfies a predetermined requirement,” [0113] “acquires a captured image of the reserved vehicle 2′… the information processing apparatus 15 displays a message on the display of the terminal 1 requesting the user to direct the imaging apparatus 14 (for example, a camera) to the reserved vehicle 2... so that the entire reserved vehicle 2′ is displayed.”
the photographing recommendation information includes at least one guideline indicating a photographing position and a photographing direction, [0053] (a display capable of outputting an image for display to the user that acts on the user’s vision, i.e. an overlay on the graphical user display, where an image may be a guideline), [0054-0055] (request for a user to perform a function to gather vehicle information including displaying vehicle information, where the information may implicitly be comprised of an outline image of the vehicle to be inspected as well as other information related to the vehicle), [0059-0062] (the system detects distance to vehicle, i.e. position and direction), [0113-0114] (requests user to direct the camera to the vehicle, where the vehicle image is captured when the orientation is placed such that the displayed directions, according to the content of the displayed image, where the directions and image that are displayed may implicitly incorporate guidelines and an outline of a vehicle, such that the directions disclose that the imaging sensors are lined up with the vehicle utilizing at least distance and position of the device to the vehicle),
and the at least one guideline is displayed superimposed on a photographing screen displayed on the inspecting user terminal and is a figure imitating the outer shape of the vehicle. [0113-0114] (requests user to direct the camera to the vehicle, where the vehicle image is captured when the orientation is placed such that the displayed directions, according to the content of the displayed image, where the directions and image that are displayed may implicitly incorporate guidelines and an outline of a vehicle, such that the directions disclose that the imaging sensors are lined up with the vehicle utilizing at least distance and position of the device to the vehicle), [0123] (overlay of vehicle information on the display of the user device, where it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply this overlay feature to any images for the vehicle, including guidelines and vehicle outlines), [0132-0135 and 0152] (the user is guided to the inspection target portion (instructed to move or to photograph) via instructions on screen including an image of the vehicle with directions to move, i.e. guidelines, the device to the proper orientation and distance from the superimposed item to capture the vehicle), [Figure 8B] and [0117] “Specifically, the information processing apparatus 15 superimposes figures having a color (for example, a fluorescent color) including components to be inspected on the component displayed on the display,” (where the highlighted components are highlighted outlined images of the vehicle area to be photographed and examiner notes the comment at [0123]), [0130] “the positional information of each of the inspection target points with the estimated positional information of the user.”
Where Hanaoka does not disclose, Sato teaches: the at least one guideline is displayed superimposed on a photographing screen displayed on the inspecting user terminal and is a figure imitating a vehicle. [0030-0035 and 0056] (at least one guideline including the outline of a vehicle is displayed on an image capturing device user interface overlaying the capturing screen).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of Hanaoka and Sato to arrive at the instant application prior to the effective filing date. Both Hanaoka and Sato incorporate communications between a server system, user devices and vehicles as well as photographing vehicles according to direction and position including overlaying images on a device used for capturing the specific image. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Sato improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing including superimposition of the guidelines and outline of the vehicle to capture images of a vehicle, which expands upon the same feature in Hanoaka, but with the explicit disclosure of further details of the amended claims. This is a design improvement over the base device in the same way as the as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way as the base invention to achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13: Hanaoka discloses and Sato teaches: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 1,
Hanaoka discloses: wherein the guideline comprises guidelines displayed the photographing screen each time a photographic image is captured. [0113-0114] (requests user to direct the camera to the vehicle, where the vehicle image is captured when the orientation is placed such that the displayed directions, according to the content of the displayed image, where the directions and image that are displayed may implicitly incorporate guidelines and an outline of a vehicle, such that the directions disclose that the imaging sensors are lined up with the vehicle utilizing at least distance and position of the device to the vehicle), [0132-0135] “, the user is guided to the inspection target portion (instructed to move or to photograph),” [Figure 8B] and [0117] “Specifically, the information processing apparatus 15 superimposes figures having a color (for example, a fluorescent color) including components to be inspected on the component displayed on the display,” (such that the color is a characterization of the overlayed/superimposed image. Further, the guide line is a characterization of the superimposed image, where characterizations are non-functional descriptive information limitations, healed further with the following disclosure of Sato), [0130] “the positional information of each of the inspection target points with the estimated positional information of the user,” [0123] (overlay of vehicle information on the display of the user device, where it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply this overlay feature to any images for the vehicle, including guidelines and vehicle outlines), [0124] “user confirms the confirmation content associated with the inspection item” like [0127] (the superimposed tread of the vehicle via an image of the outline of tire tread that the user is directed to align with the actual vehicle via the tire tread of the vehicle
Where Hanaoka does not disclose, Sato teaches: wherein the guideline comprises a plurality of guidelines that are sequentially displayed in a prescribed order on the photographing screen each time a photographic image is captured. [0030-0035, 0046, and 0056] (guidelines for multiple directions for the vehicle, i.e. multiple guidelines, including the outline of a vehicle is displayed on an image capturing device user interface overlaying the capturing screen).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of Hanaoka and Sato to arrive at the instant application prior to the effective filing date. Both Hanaoka and Sato incorporate communications between a server system, user devices and vehicles as well as photographing vehicles according to direction and position including overlaying images on a device used for capturing the specific image. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Sato improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing including superimposition of the guidelines and outline of the vehicle to capture images of a vehicle, which expands upon the same feature in Hanoaka, but with the explicit disclosure of further details of the amended claims. This is a design improvement over the base device in the same way as the as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way as the base invention to achieve predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka, US20220089127A1, in view of Sato, JP2020194481A, and in further view of Nakabayashi, US20210281804A1.
Regarding Claim 6: Hanaoka discloses and Sato teaches: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 1,
Hanaoka discloses: wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the authorized vehicle, and when a distance between a location of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than a first determination value, [0059] “that the user has approached the vehicle 2 a predetermined distance or less,” [0054] “The communication apparatus 13 is an apparatus that communicates with the vehicle 2 and the server 3 via the network 4,”
Where Hanaoka does not disclose and Sato does not teach, Nakabayashi teaches: cause an environment surrounding the authorized vehicle to be photographed by an onboard camera,[0089] “an instruction for starting the vehicle-mounted cameras 530 provided in target vehicle 500 a is issued. Then, the periphery of target vehicle 500 a is photographed”
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of Hanaoka and Nakabayashi to arrive at the instant application prior to the effective filing date. Both Hanaoka and Nakabayashi incorporate communications between a server system, user devices and vehicles. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Nakabayashi improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing to inspect the vehicle and the surrounding area and vehicles. This is a design improvement over the base device in the same way as the as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way as the base invention to achieve predictable results.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka, US20220089127A1 in view of Sato, JP2020194481A, in further view of in view of Nakabayashi, US20210281804A1, and in further view of Takata, US20190344750A1.
Regarding Claim 7: Hanaoka discloses and Sato and Nakabayashi teach: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 6,
Hanaoka discloses: wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the authorized vehicle [0059] “that the user has approached the vehicle 2 a predetermined distance or less,” [0054] “The communication apparatus 13 is an apparatus that communicates with the vehicle 2 and the server 3 via the network 4,”
Where Hanaoka does not disclose and Sato does not teach, Nakabayashi teaches: to cause the onboard camera to photograph an environment surrounding the authorized vehicle when a vibration sensor provided on the authorized vehicle has detected a vibration. [0057] (accelerometer detects motion from impact), [0038] “the first vehicle sensor can accurately grasp the situation in which the impact is applied to a target vehicle” [Figure 10]: [0068] “S102 … Controller 303 acquires the detection signal outputted by impact sensor 520 installed in the vehicle,” [0088] “In S202, the image information captured by the vehicle-mounted camera 530 of target vehicle is acquired.”
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of Hanaoka and Nakabayashi to arrive at the instant application prior to the effective filing date. Both Hanaoka and Nakabayashi incorporate communications between a server system, user devices and vehicles. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Nakabayashi improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing to inspect the vehicle and the surrounding area and vehicles. This is a design improvement over the base device in the same way as the as the claimed invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base invention and the results would have been predictable.
Where Hanaoka does not disclose and Sato and Nakabayashi do not teach, Takata teaches: vibration having a magnitude equal to a greater than a predetermined threshold value. [0073] “acquires a distance between the external device D held by the user and the vehicle 1 as a positional relationship,” [0074] “If the acquired distance is equal to or longer than a predetermined distance…changing the state of the body facility from the normal state to the theft prevention state,” [0052] (vibration sensitivity increases for the theft prevention state.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the base inventions of Hanaoka in view of Nakabayashi with Takata before the effective filing date to achieve the improvement of the combined disclosures. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Nakabayashi improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing to inspect the vehicle and the surrounding area and vehicles. The addition of Takata improves upon these disclosures by implementing the vibration magnitude threshold to a level that is predetermined to assist in identifying the appropriate time to capture an event according to the vibration experienced in the sensor. This is a design improvement over the base devices in the same way as the as the claimed invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base invention and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding Claim 8: Hanaoka discloses and Sato and Nakabayashi teach: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 7,
Hanaoka discloses: when the distance between the position of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than the first determination value than when the distance between the position of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is greater than the first determination value. [0059] “The detection unit 151 detects, at least, that the user has approached the vehicle 2 a predetermined distance or less. In the present embodiment, the detection unit 151 detects that the user has been away from the vehicle 2 by a predetermined distance or more in addition to the user approaching the vehicle 2. The predetermined distance used for detection of the user approaching and the predetermined distance used for detection of the user being away are distances set based on experimental results. The two distances may have the same value or different values.”
Where Hanaoka does not disclose and Sato and Nakabayashi do not teach, Takata teaches: wherein the threshold value is set to be lower when the distance between the position of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is equal to or less than the first determination value, than when the distance between the position of the inspecting user terminal and the parking position is greater than the first determination value. [0073] “acquires a distance between the external device D held by the user and the vehicle 1 as a positional relationship,” [0074] “If the acquired distance is equal to or longer than a predetermined distance…changing the state of the body facility from the normal state to the theft prevention state,” [0052] (vibration sensitivity increases for the theft prevention state.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the base inventions of Hanaoka in view of Nakabayashi with Takata before the effective filing date to achieve the improvement of the combined disclosures. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Nakabayashi improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing to inspect the vehicle and the surrounding area and vehicles. The addition of Takata improves upon these disclosures by implementing the vibration magnitude threshold to a level that is predetermined to assist in identifying the appropriate time to capture an event according to the vibration experienced in the sensor. This is a design improvement over the base devices in the same way as the as the claimed invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base invention and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding Claim 9: Hanaoka discloses and Sato and Nakabayashi teach: The vehicle inspection authorization information management system according to claim 8,
Hanaoka discloses: wherein the processor is configured to communicate with a first authorized vehicle; [0054] “The communication apparatus 13 is an apparatus that communicates with the vehicle 2 and the server 3 via the network 4,”
Where Hanaoka does not disclose and Sato and Takata do not teach, Nakabayashi teaches: wherein the processor is configured to communicate with a first authorized vehicle and a second authorized vehicle included in the authorized vehicles to acquire positions of the first authorized vehicle and the second authorized vehicle, and cause an onboard camera installed in the first authorized vehicle to photograph the second authorized vehicle and an onboard camera installed in the second authorized vehicle to photograph the first authorized vehicle when a distance between the first authorized vehicle and the second authorized vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined second determination value. [0104] (Selection unit communicates with first and second vehicles), [0045] “acquires the parking position of the identified vehicle,” [0106] (first and second vehicles take pictures of surroundings including each other), [0078] (distance between is a predetermined range or less).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of Hanaoka and Nakabayashi to arrive at the instant application prior to the effective filing date. Both Hanaoka and Nakabayashi incorporate communications between a server system, user devices and vehicles. Hanaoka discloses elements of the server - user and server – vehicle functions of vehicle inspection based on distances using image capturing from a user device, where Nakabayashi improves upon Hanaoka by implementing the known work in vehicle image capturing to inspect the vehicle and the surrounding area and vehicles. This is a design improvement over the base device in the same way as the as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known improvement technique in the same way as the base invention to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626