DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 23 April 2024.
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 23 April 2024 and 27 February 2025, have been considered. An initialed copy of the Forms 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 limitations are:
a display control unit (claims 1, 2, &12), a transmission unit (claims 1 & 12), a reception unit (claim 1), a disabling command unit (claim 1), a disabling execution unit (claims 3 & 8-11), a determination unit (claims 3-7), and a storage unit (claim 6).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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.
Claims 1-13 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).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a system, claim 12 is also directed to a system, and claim 13 is directed to a method.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of an order placement method for placing an order. Specifically, representative claim 13 recites the abstract idea of:
causing to display an order for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order enables selection of whether to desire delivery of the moving object in an enabled state or to desire the delivery of the moving object in a disabled state, wherein the enabled state is a state that the control is accepted, wherein the disabled state is a state that the control is not accepted; and
transmitting the order information including contents selected via the order that accepts the order of the moving object.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 13 recites the abstract idea of an order placement method for placing an order, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 13 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps for placing an order of a moving object of a manufacturer that include displaying an acceptance of an order of the moving object, selecting if the delivery of the moving object will be in an enabled state or a disabled state, and transmitting the order information that includes contents selected via the order and accepting the order of the moving object, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 13 includes additional elements of a remote control, a display device, order screen, remote control, and an order acceptance device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 13 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., placing an order) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim recites the step transmitting order information including contents selected via the order screen to an order acceptance device that accepts the order of the moving object, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity can be understood as activities that are incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In this case, the activity of transmitting the order information to an order acceptance device is merely nominal or tangential additions to the primary process of placing an order.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a remote control, a display device, order screen, remote control, and an order acceptance device recited in independent claim 13 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 13 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 13 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 13 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, the step of transmitting order information including contents selected via the order screen to an order acceptance device that accepts the order of the moving object does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because they it is merely a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry of data management and processing. The courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a generic manner or as insignificantly extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g., using the Internet to send data) are recognized computer functions that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). This is similar to the steps and additional elements that are recited in the claims. For example, the step of transmitting the order information to an order acceptance device would be the same as the activity of transmitting data over a network in this case. For examples of court cases, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, representative claim 13 is ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and 12 are similar in nature to representative claim 13 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 13. It is noted that in independent claim 1 includes the additional elements of an order placement device, a display control unit, a transmission unit, a reception unit, and a disabling command unit, and independent claim 12 includes the additional element of an order placement device, a display control unit, and a transmission unit. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements recited in claims 1 and 12, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 1 and 12 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 1 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, depending from claim 1, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 1, 12, and representative independent claim 13. The claims of 2-11 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a remote control device (claim 2), a disabling execution unit (claims 3 & 8-11), a determination unit (claims 4-7), and a storage unit (claim 6). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claims additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim [45] is directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2-11, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, the dependent claims 2-11 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix, A. (PGP No. US 2018/0339703 A1), in view of Fusz, E., (PGP No. US 2015/0278886 A1).
Claim 1-
Nix discloses an order placement/order acceptance system comprising:
an order placement device configured to place an order of a moving object that is moved by remote control in a manufacturing process of the moving object (Nix, see: paragraph [0011] disclosing “movement of vehicles [i.e., moving object] between a vehicle assembly plant and a vehicle dealership”; and paragraph [0012] disclosing “operating modes including…a remote-controlled mode”; and paragraph [0034] disclosing “automate movement of newly manufactured vehicles within a vehicle assembly plant”; and paragraph [0055] disclosing “server 220 communicates…a request [i.e., an order placement device]” and “to the vehicle processing module 301”; And see paragraph [0057], which further describes the server’s request for the vehicle to be put into motion for delivery.); and
an order acceptance device configured to accept an order of the moving object (Nix, see: paragraph (Nix, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “server 220 transmits a motion request message 421 to the vehicle processing module 301 [i.e., acceptance device]” and “authorizes…to execute the motion request”),
wherein the order placement device includes a control unit and a transmission unit (Nix, see: paragraph [0063] disclosing “infrastructure 350 [i.e., a transmission unit] transmits a remote operation request 502 to the vehicle” and “remote operation request 502 may be sent directly to the vehicle 200, e.g. through a wireless interface [i.e., control unit]”) , wherein the control unit is configured for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order enables selection of whether to desire delivery of the moving object in an enabled state or to desire the delivery of the moving object in a disabled state, wherein the enabled state is a state that the remote control is accepted, wherein the disabled state is a state that the remote control is not accepted (Nix, see: paragraph [0065] disclosing “required conditions for remote operation have been met, the vehicle will switch into a remote-controlled operating mode [i.e., enabled state] and acknowledge its readiness for remote operation with an acknowledgement message 505 to the infrastructure”; and paragraph [0072] disclosing “Once the vehicle 200 reaches the end of the…facility [i.e., delivery], the infrastructure 350 may request the vehicle 200 to switch”), and
wherein the transmission unit is configured to transmit order information including contents selected via the order (Nix, see: paragraph [0067] disclosing “the infrastructure 350 may, in a motion determination step 512, determine a desired motion action”; and paragraph [0068] disclosing “desired motion action established in the motion determination step 512 is consecutively communicated from the infrastructure 350 to the vehicle 200 in a motion request message 513 [i.e., contents selected]”), and
wherein the order acceptance device includes a reception unit and a disabling command unit, wherein the reception unit is configured to receive the order information (Nix, see: paragraph [0072] disclosing “the infrastructure 350 may request the vehicle 200 to switch back into a manual operational mode by transmitting a manual operation request [i.e., disabling command]”), and
wherein the disabling command unit is configured to transmit to the moving object a disabling command for switching the enabled state to the disabled state, wherein when the order information indicates that the delivery of the moving object in the disabled state is desired, the disabling command unit transmits to the moving object the disabling command (Nix, see: pargraph [0065] disclosing “the vehicle will switch into a remote-controlled operating mode and acknowledge its readiness for remote operation with an acknowledgement message 505 to the infrastructure”; and paragraph [0072] disclosing “Once the vehicle 200 reaches the end of the…facility [i.e., delivery], the infrastructure 350 may request the vehicle 200 to switch back into a manual operational mode by transmitting a manual operation request message 522” and “manual operation has been restored and confirm the manual operation mode with an acknowledgement message 525”).
Although Nix does disclose a device that communicates an order for a moving object, such as a vehicle to be delivered (Nix, paragraphs [0055] and [0057]), Nix does not disclose that the order placement device has a display control unit, such as a display for order an screen. Nix does not disclose:
display control unit
the display control unit is configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection;
the screen;
Fusz, however, does teach:
display control unit (Fusz, see: paragraph [0031] teaching “Client computing device 402” and “includes at least one media output component 415 for presenting information” and “coupled to an output device such as a display device”; and paragraph [0033] teaching “also includes a communication interface 425”);
the display control unit is configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection (Fusz, see: paragraph [0024] teaching “Consumer 102 evaluates the price included in response 130 and decides to purchase vehicle 110” and “consumer 102 causes client computing device 104 to transmit a communication 132 to server system 122, including an indication that consumer 102 wishes to purchase vehicle 110 [i.e., enables selection]” and “instruction to proceed with ordering vehicle 110 from the manufacturer and to deliver vehicle 110 to consumer 102”);
the screen (Fusz, see: paragraph [0031] teaching “Client computing device 402” and “includes at least one media output component 415 for presenting information” and “coupled to an output device such as a display device”).
This step of Fusz is applicable to the system of Nix, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to ordering a vehicle. 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 system of Nix to include the features of display control unit, the display control unit is configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection, and the screen, as taught by Fusz. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Nix to improve providing vehicle ordering information for a consumer (Fusz, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 3-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 1, as described above.
Nix further discloses:
wherein the moving object includes a disabling execution unit configured to switch the enabled state to the disabled state (Nix, see: [0072] disclosing “infrastructure 350 may request the vehicle 200 to switch back into a manual operational mode by transmitting a manual operation request message 522” and “manual operation has been restored and confirm the manual operation mode with an acknowledgement message 525”),
wherein when a predetermined condition including reception of the disabling command is satisfied, disabling execution unit switches the enabled state to the disabled state (Nix, see: paragraph [0065] disclosing “all preparatory actions have been completed and if all required conditions for remote operation have been met, the vehicle will switch into a remote-controlled operating mode and acknowledge its readiness for remote operation”).
Claim 4-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 1, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein the order acceptance device further includes a determination unit configured to determine whether or not to accept the order placement of the moving object (Nix, see: paragraph [0064] disclosing “compare its GNSS world coordinates with a table of known…location to accept or reject the remote operation request 502”),
wherein when the order information indicates that the delivery of the moving object in the enabled state is desired, the determination unit determines whether or not to accept the order placement of the moving object (Nix, see: paragraph [0064] disclosing “compare its GNSS world coordinates with a table of known…location to accept or reject the remote operation request 502”; Also see: FIG. 5).
Claim 5-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 4, as described above.
Fusz discloses:
wherein the determination unit determines whether or not to accept the order placement of the moving object using information related to a client who requests the moving object. (Nix, paragraph [0011] disclosing “movement of vehicles between a vehicle assembly plant and a vehicle dealership [i.e., client]”).
Nix does not disclose that the client actually purchases the moving object. Nix does not disclose:
a client who purchases the moving object;
Fusz, however, does teach:
a client who purchases the moving object (Fusz, see: paragraph [0024] teaching “Consumer 102 evaluates the price included in response 130 and decides to purchase vehicle 110” and “consumer 102 causes client computing device 104 to transmit a communication 132 to server system 122, including an indication that consumer 102 wishes to purchase vehicle 110 [i.e., enables selection]” and “instruction to proceed with ordering vehicle 110 from the manufacturer and to deliver vehicle 110 to consumer 102”).
This step of Fusz is applicable to the system of Nix, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to ordering a vehicle. 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 system of Nix to include the features of a client who purchases the moving object, as taught by Fusz. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Nix to improve providing vehicle ordering information for a consumer (Fusz, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 6-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 4, as described above.
Nix disclose:
wherein the order acceptance device further includes a storage unit configured to store a database related to a client for whom the delivery of the moving object in the enabled state is permitted (Nix, see: paragraph [0101] depicting a table with associated special use environments, where specific environments have conditions that must be met to allow activating the either the remote-controlled mode of the vehicle or the deactivation of the remote-controlled mode. Also see: FIG. 9), and
the determination unit determines whether or not to accept the order placement of the moving object using the database (Nix, see: paragraph [0101]-[0102], describing FIG. 9, where “activation conditions which determine the transition from regular mode to remote-controlled mode and deactivation conditions which determine the transition from remote-controlled mode to regular mode” and where the table is in FIG. 9 is stored in a memory component.).
Claim 7-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 4, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein, when determining not to accept the order placement of the moving object, the determination unit transmits, to the order placement device, information indicating that the order placement of the moving object is not accepted (Nix, see: paragraph [0057] disclosing “a motion valid message is not received as expected, the vehicle processing module 301 may stop the vehicle 200”; and paragraph [0064] disclosing compare its GNSS world coordinates with a table of known…location to accept or reject the remote operation request 502”).
Claim 8-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 3, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein, when receiving the disabling command and then detecting that the moving object is located in a predetermined area, the disabling execution unit switches the enabled state to the disabled state (Nix, see: paragraph [0103] disclosing “The activating conditions 902 may also include verifying that a geographic position as determined by a GNSS receiver falls within a predetermined geographic area encoded within the activation conditions 902” and “cause the vehicle 200 to deactivate its remote-controlled operating mode”).
Claim 9-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 3, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein, the disabling execution unit switches the enabled state to the disabled state at a timing at which a predetermined period passes after the disabling command is received (Nix, see: paragraph [0103] disclosing “The deactivation conditions 903 may e.g. include any of the activation conditions 902 being no longer met. The deactivation conditions 903 may include additional conditions, such as e.g. expiration of a timer since the remote-controlled operating mode has been activated. The remote-controlled operating mode may e.g. be automatically deactivated 60 minutes, 6 hours, 2 day, or 7 days after it has been activated”).
Claim 11-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 3, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein, when receiving the disabling command and then detecting that another moving object located in surroundings of the moving object has been switched from the enabled state to the disabled state, the disabling execution unit switches the enabled state to the disabled state (Nix, see: paragraph [0050] disclosing “sensors may be arranged so as to have overlapping fields of view and may be configured to detect the self-propelled vehicle as well as obstacles…along the path of the self-propelled vehicle” and “the server 220 may be configured to execute instructions to provide features such as vehicle detection 352,…vehicle path monitoring 354”).
Claim 12-
Nix discloses an order placement device that places an order of a moving object that is moved by remote control in a manufacturing process of the moving object (Nix, see: paragraph [0011] disclosing “movement of vehicles between a vehicle assembly plant and a vehicle dealership”), the order placement device comprising:
a control unit configured to cause accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order enables selection of whether to desire delivery of the moving object in an enabled state or to desire the delivery of the moving object in a disabled state, wherein the enabled state is a state that the remote control is accepted, wherein the disabled state is a state that the remote control is not accepted (Nix, see: paragraph [0065] disclosing “required conditions for remote operation have been met, the vehicle will switch into a remote-controlled operating mode [i.e., enabled state] and acknowledge its readiness for remote operation with an acknowledgement message 505 to the infrastructure”; and paragraph [0072] disclosing “Once the vehicle 200 reaches the end of the…facility [i.e., delivery], the infrastructure 350 may request the vehicle 200 to switch”); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit order information including contents selected via the order to an order acceptance device that accepts the order of the moving object (Nix, see: paragraph [0067] disclosing “the infrastructure 350 may, in a motion determination step 512, determine a desired motion action”; and paragraph [0068] disclosing “desired motion action established in the motion determination step 512 is consecutively communicated from the infrastructure 350 to the vehicle 200 in a motion request message 513 [i.e., contents selected]”).
Although Nix does disclose a device that communicates an order for a moving object, such as a vehicle to be delivered (Nix, paragraphs [0055] and [0057]), Nix does not disclose that the order placement device has a display control unit, such as a display for order an screen. Nix does not disclose:
a display control unit configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection;
the screen;
Fusz, however, does teach:
a display control unit configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection (Fusz, see: paragraph [0024] teaching “Consumer 102 evaluates the price included in response 130 and decides to purchase vehicle 110” and “consumer 102 causes client computing device 104 to transmit a communication 132 to server system 122, including an indication that consumer 102 wishes to purchase vehicle 110 [i.e., enables selection]” and “instruction to proceed with ordering vehicle 110 from the manufacturer and to deliver vehicle 110 to consumer 102”);
the screen (Fusz, see: paragraph [0031] teaching “Client computing device 402” and “includes at least one media output component 415 for presenting information” and “coupled to an output device such as a display device”).
This step of Fusz is applicable to the system of Nix, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to ordering a vehicle. 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 system of Nix to include the features of display control unit, the display control unit is configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection, and the screen, as taught by Fusz. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Nix to improve providing vehicle ordering information for a consumer (Fusz, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a method. Claim 13 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 12, which is directed towards a system. It is noted that claim 13 does not recite a display control unit, as recited in claim 12. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 12.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix, A., in view of Fazi, P. (PGP No. US 2016/0274882 A1), and Fusz, E.
Claim 2-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 1, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein, when the delivery of the moving object in the enabled state is selected, the control unit enables selection that remotely controls the moving object on the order (Nix, see: paragraph [0063] disclosing “infrastructure 350 [i.e., a transmission unit] transmits a remote operation request 502 to the vehicle” and “remote operation request 502 may be sent directly to the vehicle 200, e.g. through a wireless interface [i.e., control unit]”).
Nix does not disclose:
selection of whether or not to order a remote control device,
Fazi, however, does teach:
selection of whether or not to order a remote control device (Fazi, see: paragraph [0049] teaching “comprises an add-on option 220 that allows an add-on hardware 220 to be connected with the aftermarket telematics device 214 to provide additional telematics features. The add-on option 220 allows additional telematics features to be added to the aftermarket telematics device 214 after the customer 106 purchases the aftermarket telematics device 214. For example, a particular aftermarket telematics device 214 is designed to provide a remote start feature”; and paragraph [0056] teaching “device 214 provides different telematics features such as remote start and monitoring of the vehicle information” and “the driver, can control the aftermarket telematics device 214 through the vehicle 218, such as by using the radio or the buttons on the steering wheel” and “can control the aftermarket telematics device 214 using the first customer user interface 204 installed in the first mobile device 206”).
This step of Fazi is applicable to the system of Nix, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to telematic devices for vehicles. 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 system of Nix to include the features of selection of whether or not to order a remote control device, as taught by Fazi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Nix to provide telematic solutions for a consumer regarding vehicle purchasing (Fazi, see: pargraph [0009]).
Further, Nix does not disclose:
the display,
the screen;
Fusz, however, does teach:
the display (Fusz, see: paragraph [0031] teaching “Client computing device 402” and “includes at least one media output component 415 for presenting information” and “coupled to an output device such as a display device”),
the screen (Fusz, see: paragraph [0031] teaching “Client computing device 402” and “includes at least one media output component 415 for presenting information” and “coupled to an output device such as a display device”).
This step of Fusz is applicable to the system of Nix, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to ordering a vehicle. 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 system of Nix to include the features of display control unit, the display control unit is configured to cause a display device to display an order screen for accepting the order of the moving object, wherein the order screen enables selection, and the screen, as taught by Fusz. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Nix to improve providing vehicle ordering information for a consumer (Fusz, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix, A., in view of Fusz, E., and Inoue, Y., et al. (Patent No. US 12,496,986 B2).
Claim 10-
Nix in view of Fusz teach the order placement/order acceptance system according to claim 3, as described above.
Nix discloses:
wherein, when receiving the disabling command and then detecting an electromagnetic wave, the disabling execution unit switches the enabled state to the disabled state (Nix, see: paragraph [0045] disclosing “sensors may further include object detection sensors such as cameras, radar sensors, lidar sensors, and ultrasonic sensors”; and paragraph [0103] disclosing “deactivation conditions 903, which cause the vehicle 200 to deactivate its remote-controlled operating mode. The deactivation conditions 903 may e.g. include any of the activation conditions 902 being no longer met”).
Nix does not disclose:
a predetermined wavelength;
Inoue, however, does teach:
a predetermined wavelength (Inoue, see: Col. 7, ln. 4-6 teaching “radar 312 detects the position of the object present around the vehicle by transmitting and receiving waves of the radar 312 in the millimeter wave band”).
This step of Inoue is applicable to the system of Nix, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to vehicle devices. 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 system of Nix to include the features of a predetermined wavelength, as taught by Inoue. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Nix to provide improvements in vehicle devices even after shipment of the vehicle (Inoue, see: Col. 18, and at least lines 25-37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Esposito, T., et al. (PGP No. US 2017/0270580 A1), describes a method and system for facilitating a purchase of vehicles by buyers or sellers of vehicles, including a data platform may comprise a machine learning model indicative of a propensity of a buyer to buy a respective vehicle of a plurality of vehicles for sale.
Savir, O., et al. (PGP No. US 2016/0104222 A1), describes a system and method for selling and buying vehicles that includes the system to receive detail data associated with a vehicle from a client device of a seller, retrieve, from third party data servers, retail prices and trade-in prices of vehicles corresponding to the detail data, calculate a marketplace offering price for the vehicle based on the retail and trade-in prices, and transmit the marketplace offering price for the vehicle to the client device of the seller.
Non-patent literature (NPL), from the website of solving.com, titled Transform your material handing with customized Solving AGV’s, renders a website to customize transporting of vehicles and heavier materials, specifically regarding car assembly lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights