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 .
Acknowledgments
The submission filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 01/27/2026, claims 1-4 were amended, claim 5 was cancelled, and no claims were added.
Claims 1-4 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim interpretation
The claim interpretation (means plus function) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments deleting the subject matter in question.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejections (which were issued under Section 112(b)) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments and cancellation. However, the instant claim amendments give rise to a new rejection (issued under Section 112(a)). Explanation is provided in the body of the Office Action hereinbelow.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Office responds to Applicant’s arguments below. In the discussion below, page numbers refer to Applicant’s Response, unless otherwise indicated.
First (pp. 7-8), regarding step 2A, prong 1, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite but rather merely involve a judicial exception. In support of this argument, Applicant cites examples of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" from the October 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, alleging that the instant claims "do not contain features that instruct a human to act in a particular way," and accordingly do not fall under the sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" (p. 8).
Note: "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" is a sub-grouping of "certain methods of organizing human activity." MPEP 2106.04(a).
In response, the Office notes that the claims were not rejected as falling under the sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." Rather, the claims were rejected as falling under the sub-groupings of "fundamental economic principles or practices" and/or "commercial or legal interactions." Therefore, Applicant's argument is not responsive to the content of the rejection and accordingly is moot.
In any event, the bolded content of claim 1 in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 hereinbelow recites a judicial exception. For example, limitations such as analyzing behavior of a user of a car sharing service, calculating an evaluation value, and presenting the evaluation value to the vehicle owner when the user selects a vehicle to rent (i.e., regarding a prospective rental), constitute an abstract idea, falling under the sub-groupings of "fundamental economic principles or practices" and/or "commercial or legal interactions." In light of the totality of the claim, e.g., the other abstract idea limitations and the additional elements, it is seen that claim 1 is directed to, and does not merely recite, this abstract idea.
Second (pp. 8-9), regarding step 2A, prong 2, Applicant argues that "claim 1 demonstrates a technological improvement that provides a practical application" by virtue of "limiting the video capturing period to 'a period of interior cleaning after the vehicle is used'," thereby refraining from invading a user's privacy and collecting only data necessary for verifying a user's cleaning behavior (pp. 8-9).
The alleged improvement is not an improvement in technology or functioning of a computer. Rather, claim 1 uses off-the-shelf technology (camera) and a computer (server) in their ordinary capacities. Instead, the alleged improvement is in the timing of the capture of the video. The limitations in question pertaining to timing include nothing technological, e.g., technological implementation detail, nor do they create any inventive structural relationship. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Third (pp. 9-10), regarding step 2B, Applicant argues that claim 1 "as a whole, amounts to significantly more than [the] abstract idea," alleging that the claim limitations "recite a specific, unconventional ordered combination of the camera, the vehicle, and the server," that is "not found in the cited references" (pp. 9-10).
As best understood, Applicant is arguing the claims are not well-understood, routine and conventional subject matter. However, the claims were not rejected under step 2B as well-understood, routine and conventional subject matter. Rather, the claims were rejected under Step 2B because, when the additional elements are included in the consideration of the claims as a combination, they are merely generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality, that are used to apply the abstract idea, or they merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. However, "adding the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" and "generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use" are "[l]imitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as 'significantly more' when recited in a claim with a judicial exception." MPEP 2106.05. (Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), I. (THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT), A.(Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept).
Regarding consideration of claim 1 as a whole, the Office further notes that the claim when considered as a whole presents no synergistic effect or the like such as would amount to anything beyond its individual elements when the claim is considered in terms of its individual elements.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lack of Written Description/Not in Specification
Claim 4 recites:
"wherein the video capturing period is limited based on a condition that consent of the user has been obtained."
Support in the disclosure is not found for the above-indicated recitation.
As best understood, the portions of the disclosure most closely related to the above-indicated recitation are in the specification as filed at 0013 and 0027-0028.
0013 and 0028 teach that the video capture and the evaluation are performed on condition that consent of the user has been obtained.
0027 teaches that the period of video capture may be limited.
The disclosure does not suggest any connection between this subject matter of 0013 and 0028 on the one hand, and this subject matter of 0027 on the other hand.
In addition, when the nature of these two subject matters are considered, no connection between them suggests itself.
Accordingly, support in the disclosure is not found for claim 4.
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 1-4 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.
Claims 1-4 are directed to a system, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for evaluating handling of a vehicle by a user of a car sharing service.
For claim 1, the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
a camera installed in a vehicle that is used for a car sharing service, the camera being configured to capture video, during a video capturing period, of an interior of the vehicle together with a user of the vehicle,
wherein the video capturing period is limited to a period of interior cleaning after the vehicle has been used; and
a server comprising a processor configured to:
analyze, from the video acquired during the period of interior cleaning, a behavior of the user inside the vehicle to determine whether the user performed the interior cleaning,
calculate an evaluation value regarding handling of the vehicle by the user of the car sharing service based on the determination of whether the user performed the interior cleaning, and
present the evaluation value to a vehicle owner when the user selects the vehicle to rent.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recite the additional elements of "a camera installed in a vehicle that is used"; "the camera being configured to capture video"; "a server comprising a processor configured to:"; and "from the video acquired," that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, or a particular technological environment or field of use), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements ("a server comprising a processor configured to:"), or such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ("a camera installed in a vehicle that is used"; "the camera being configured to capture video"; and "from the video acquired"). Accordingly, even in combination these 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. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of "a camera installed in a vehicle that is used"; "the camera being configured to capture video"; "a server comprising a processor configured to:"; and "from the video acquired," to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 2-4 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Claim 2 merely describes wherein … to use the evaluation value to present an evaluation of a renter who wishes to rent the vehicle when the owner of the vehicle determines whether to allow the renter to rent the vehicle.
Claim 3 merely describes wherein … to use the evaluation value to present an evaluation of the vehicle when a renter who wishes to rent the vehicle selects a vehicle to rent.
Claim 4 merely describes wherein the video capturing period is limited based on a condition that consent of the user has been obtained.
As for additional elements:
Claims 2 and 3 recite "the server is further configured." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, is not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible.
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0326973 A1), hereafter Sakurada, in view of Hazleton (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0343412 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Sakurada teaches:
a camera (Fig. 2, camera unit 23, 0047) installed in a vehicle (Fig. 2, vehicle 2) that is used for a car sharing service (0040 "a system that provides the vehicles 2 for use of other persons when owners do not use the vehicles 2.", Abstract, 0034-0035); and
the camera being configured to capture video, during a video capturing period, of an interior of the vehicle together with a user of the vehicle, (regarding the camera being configured to capture video: 0093 "The picked-up image may he [sic, be] video of the user performing cleaning"; regarding during a video capturing period: as explained at the next bullet point immediately below, Fig. 10 can include S175 as the sole time of taking a photograph (per 0093 the photograph can instead be "video of the user performing cleaning)"; regarding of an interior of the vehicle together with a user of the vehicle: 0047 "The camera unit 23 refers to a plurality of cameras that pick up images in the forward direction of the vehicle 2, in the backward direction of the vehicle 2 and of the inside of a vehicle cabin of the vehicle 2, respectively."; 0093 "… an image of the inside of the vehicle 2 by the camera unit 23 … The picked-up image may he [sic, be] video of the user performing cleaning")
wherein the video capturing period is limited to a period of interior cleaning after the vehicle has been used; (Fig. 10 shows the entire rental process from beginning to end. Fig. 10 includes S105, photograph image at start time; S150, start image pickup; and S175, photograph image at return time. However, S150 is optional and it is taught that the process can exclude S150 (namely, S140, NO, see 0088). Further, S105 is not necessarily performed, and it is taught that the process can exclude S105: specifically, 0083 (re Fig. 10) "Note that, in the case of using a picked-up image picked up at the last return time as a current picked-up image at use start time or in the case of using a picked-up image registered in advance (a reference image) as a picked-up image at use start time, step S105 may be omitted."; 0097 (re Fig. 11 depicting "starting use of a vehicle 2") "Note that, in the case of picking up an image of the inside of the vehicle 2 like FIG. 10, the process of FIG. 11 [i.e., taking photograph at start time] may be omitted."; 0099 (re Fig. 12 depicting "vehicle 2 being returned") "Note that the picked-up image at use start time is not limited to an image picked up when the user starts use, but a picked-up image received from an onboard apparatus 20 or a user terminal 4 when the last user returned the vehicle 2 (the last picked-up image at return time) may be used. Further, a configuration is also possible in which an image of predetermined positions inside the vehicle 2 is picked up in a state in which the inside of the vehicle 2 is cleaned in advance or a state in which there is no trash inside the vehicle 2 and stored in the storage unit 302 as a reference image, and, at step S310, the reference image is read out from the storage unit 302 instead of a picked-up image at use start time." Therefore, since it is taught that in Fig. 10 steps S105 and S150 can be omitted, in this case S175 is the only step of taking a photograph in the vehicle rental process, and S175 occurs at the time of vehicle return, that is, after use of the vehicle by the renter. Furthermore, step S175 can be implemented as described in 0093: "In the case of a positive judgment at step S170, the controller 201 transitions to step S175 and picks up an image of the inside of the vehicle 2 by the camera unit 23 to acquire a picked-up image at return time. … The picked-up image may he [sic, be] video of the user performing cleaning.")
a server comprising a processor configured to: (0049 controller 201 having processor, 0056-0057, Fig. 4, management server 3 having controller 301, which in turn has evaluation unit 315; 0112)
analyze, from the video acquired during the period of interior cleaning, a behavior of the user inside the vehicle to determine whether the user performed the interior cleaning, (0041 "the information processing system 1 … evaluates manners of a user at least based on a picked-up image of a vehicle 2 at time of the vehicle 2 being returned"; 0053 "The judgment condition is a condition to judge whether the manners provision is obeyed or not based on information acquired from the sensor 22 and the camera unit 23."; 0075; 0100 "At step S320, the controller 301 compares the picked-up images at return time and use start time of the vehicle 2, and, when there is a different area [i.e., a difference (in some area of the image) between the return (end) and start images], extracts an image of the area from the picked-up image at return time. Then, the controller 301 performs image processing for the image of this area and judges whether or not the image of this area indicates stain or trash."; 0101 "At step S330, the controller 301 evaluates whether the user has obeyed mariners [sic, manners] provisions or not according to a result of the judgment of step S320 and the traveling situation received from the onboard apparatus 20. For example, when detecting stain at S320, the controller 301 judges that the manners provision (performing cleaning inside the vehicle) is not obeyed. Further when detecting trash at step S320, the controller 301 judges that the manners provision (cleaning up trash) is not obeyed."; 0107 "Thereby, the information processing system of the present embodiment can evaluate whether a user has obeyed the manners provisions or not")
calculate an evaluation value (Fig. 3, 0053 judgment condition; 0075, 0103, 0106 evaluation value) regarding handling of the vehicle by the user of the car sharing service based on a video inside the vehicle captured by the imaging device. (0075, 0103, 0106 calculate an evaluation value regarding whether renter obeyed manners provisions, e.g., performed cleaning, cleaned up trash (see also 0034, claim 4), based on 'before' and 'after' photographs, see also 0100-0101, 0106; note as per 0093 photograph can instead be video of user performing cleaning)
present the evaluation value to … when the user selects the vehicle to rent. (0034-0035, 0104 and 0109 teach providing an evaluation value regarding the renter so that the owner can decide whether to allow the renter to rent a vehicle when the renter selects the vehicle to rent, e.g., "This evaluation value is used, for example, for judgment of whether use of the vehicle 2 is allowed or not when the use of the vehicle 2 is requested" (when the user selects the vehicle to rent ) (0104), "In a case where the evaluation value when the user uses the vehicle 2 is equal to or below a threshold, the management server 3 may generate penalty information indicating a penalty, such as prohibiting use by the user from next time, and present the penalty information to the user. Thereby, it is possible for the management server 3 to smoothly operate car sharing by suppressing use by a user who does not obey manners provisions, such as giving a penalty to the user to exclude the user." (0109))
As explained above, Sakurada 0034-0035, 0104 and 0109 teaches providing the evaluation value pertaining (to the renter), at the time the renter selects a vehicle for rental (present the evaluation value to … when the user selects the vehicle to rent), for the purpose of allowing the owner to decide whether to allow the renter to rent the owner's vehicle (as well as for the purpose of incentivizing the renter to properly maintain/clean the vehicle). Thus, Sakurada implies that the evaluation value is provided to the vehicle owner, in order for the owner to make this decision. But Sakurada does not explicitly disclose providing the evaluation value to the owner.
As noted, Sakurada teaches providing the evaluation value to the renter (e.g., 0109 "the management server 3 may generate penalty information indicating a penalty, such as prohibiting use by the user from next time, and present the penalty information to the user").
Also in this context, Sakurada 0105 teaches "[providing] incentive information [determined according to the evaluation value] for the owner."
However, despite these teachings, in sum Sakurada does not explicitly disclose providing the evaluation value to the owner.
Nonetheless, Hazleton remedies this deficiency of Sakurada.
Hazleton further teaches:
present the evaluation … to a vehicle owner when the user selects the vehicle to rent. (0042 Note re Hazleton's terminology: Hazleton uses the term "renters" to refer to "individuals who own the one or more vehicles listed for rent" (i.e., owners), and the term "rentees" to refer to "individuals who pay the renter to access the one or more vehicles listed for rent, to access vehicles"1; 0001 "providing users [renters and rentees] comprehensive information on the rental vehicles and other users of the vehicle rental application," 0045 "The vehicle rental application comprises a display module of the computing device capable of displaying one or more vehicle categories comprising the personally owned vehicles related to a GPS defined area, a price list for renting each of the personally owned vehicles, a rental history for said plurality of renters 106, a rental history for said plurality of rentees 112, availability for renting each of said personally owned vehicles and one or more reviews," 0046 "Providing reviews for both the renters 106 and the rentees 112 is an important feature [of the vehicle rental application] as it allows future renters [i.e., owners] 106 to evaluate how well individual rentees 112 have cared for rented vehicles in the past," 0055 renters and rentees can link reviews and rental histories to social media platforms; 0047 "FIG. 2 provides [rentee and renter workflows] of a vehicle rental application … [including] location selection 202, vehicle category selection 204, vehicle selection 206 and finally booking 208."; Fig. 5, 206, 208, 0051 "FIG. 5 provides subcategories 500 for the vehicle selection 206 of a vehicle rental application"; as per the foregoing (0001, 0045-0046, 0055), reviews and rental histories are provided to the vehicle owner ("renter" in Hazleton's terminology) during use of the vehicle rental application, which (per 0047, 0051, Fig. 5, 206, 208) includes vehicle selection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakurada's car sharing system that encourages renters to clean the rental cars after they use them, by incorporating therein these teachings of Hazleton regarding providing owners with evaluations of renters (pertaining to how well the renters have maintained/cleaned the owners' cars) to assist the owners in deciding whether to allow a given renter to rent the owner's car, e.g., when the renter requests/selects the owner's car to rent, because it permits owners to avoid renting to renters who do not clean the cars and therefore permits owners to avoid encountering returned cars that are dirty, and at the same time it provides an incentive to renters to clean the cars they use (so that they will be allowed to rent in the future). Moreover, as explained above, Sakurada (0034-0035, 0104, 0109) implies that the owners are provided with evaluations of the renters for this purpose (and Sakurada 0109, 0105 provides related teachings), but Sakurada does not explicitly state that the owners are provided with evaluations of the renters. So Hazleton is merely filling in implementation detail that is implicit in Sakurada and seemingly necessary for Sakurada to fulfill its stated purpose (e.g., promoting car sharing by encouraging renters to obey the manners provisions (e.g., to clean the cars they borrow) so that the owners do not decline to participate in the car sharing by refusing to loan cars to renters who fail to clean the cars they borrow).
Regarding Claim 2
Sakurada in view of Hazleton teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Sakurada further teaches:
wherein the server is further configured to use the evaluation value to present an evaluation of a renter who wishes to rent the vehicle when an owner of the vehicle determines whether to allow the renter to rent the vehicle. (0034-0035, 0104-0105 and 0109)
Regarding Claim 3
Sakurada in view of Hazleton teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Hazleton further teaches:
wherein the server is further configured to use the evaluation value to present an evaluation of the vehicle when a renter who wishes to rent the vehicle selects a vehicle to rent. (0001 "providing users [renters and rentees] comprehensive information on the rental vehicles and other users of the vehicle rental application," 0045 "The vehicle rental application comprises a display module of the computing device capable of displaying one or more vehicle categories comprising the personally owned vehicles related to a GPS defined area, a price list for renting each of the personally owned vehicles, a rental history for said plurality of renters 106, a rental history for said plurality of rentees 112, availability for renting each of said personally owned vehicles and one or more reviews," 0046 "Providing reviews for both the renters 106 and the rentees 112 is an important feature as it allows future renters 106 to evaluate how well individual rentees 112 have cared for rented vehicles in the past as well as allows future rentees 112 to evaluate how well individual renters 106 have cared for rented vehicles in the past. … In some embodiments, the vehicle rental application allows for the plurality of rentees to request a refund in an event where the personally owned vehicles are in poor or unworkable condition." 0055 renters and rentees can link reviews and rental histories to social media platforms; 0047 "FIG. 2 provides [rentee and renter workflows] of a vehicle rental application … [including] location selection 202, vehicle category selection 204, vehicle selection 206 and finally booking 208."; Fig. 5, 206, 208, 0051 "FIG. 5 provides subcategories 500 for the vehicle selection 206 of a vehicle rental application"; as per the foregoing (0001, 0045-0046, 0055), reviews and rental histories (which include evaluations of vehicles, see, e.g., 0046) are provided during use of the vehicle rental application, which (per 0047, 0051, Fig. 5, 206, 208) includes vehicle selection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sakurada's car sharing system that encourages renters to clean the rental cars after they use them, as modified by Hazleton's teachings regarding providing owners with evaluations of renters (pertaining to how well the renters have maintained/cleaned the owners' cars) to assist the owners in deciding whether to allow a given renter to rent the owner's car, e.g., when the renter requests/selects the owner's car to rent, by incorporating therein these further teachings of Hazleton regarding providing evaluations of vehicles to assist renters ("rentees" in Hazleton's terminology) determine the condition of vehicles available for rental, because it would permit renters/borrowers to avoid renting/borrowing cars that are in poor condition and to select cars for rental that are in good condition, and at the same time it would provide an incentive to owners to keep their cars well-maintained and clean (so that renters/borrowers will want to rent/borrow their cars in the future), thereby boosting renter/borrower (and owner) satisfaction and increasing the likelihood that renters/borrowers (and owners) will continue to use the car share/rental system.
Regarding Claim 4
Sakurada in view of Hazleton teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Sakurada further teaches:
wherein the video capturing period is limited based on a condition that consent of the user has been obtained. (0110 "Further, by causing the user with a low evaluation value to approve image pickup of the inside of a vehicle 2 during rent, the management server 3 can encourage the user to psychologically obey manners.")
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among the cited references:
Sakurada (Toyota Jidosha KK) (US-2019/0244261-A1) teaches a method of rating a renter of a vehicle in a car share service, where the rating covers the internal and external appearance of the vehicle, and the rating is determined by comparing photographs taken before and after the renter rented the vehicle.
Mitsumaki (Toyota Jidosha KK) (US-2019/0287166-A1) teaches a method of evaluating a renter of a vehicle in a car share service, where the rating covers the degree of dirt in the vehicle interior, and the rating is determined by inspection of the vehicle by the owner.
Dutta (Toyota Motor North America) (US-2020/0402391-A1) teaches determining a change in condition, e.g., damage, cleanliness, etc., of a rental vehicle, by comparing a post-rental condition to a pre-rental condition, based on various data collected, e.g., by sensors and/or video, and determining a rating of the user based on the determined change in condition and a review of the renter (see exemplary paragraphs 0031, 0066, 0071).
Tiderington (US-2020/0104778-A1) teaches, for a car sharing service, generating a vehicle usage assessment for a first renter, comprising an assessment of cleanliness, based on a vehicle condition assessment of the vehicle used, where the assessment is provided by a second, subsequent renter immediately following the first renter.
Binion (US-2015/0100505-A1) teaches, for a car sharing service, determining a change in condition of a vehicle that occurred while a renter was renting the vehicle, analyzing movement data to determine that the renter was eating food in the vehicle, and determining a correlation between the change in condition and the renter.
Tokatyan (US-20180330475-A1) and II (Toyota Jidosha KK) (US-20210097316-A1) teaches determining dirt on a vehicle interior by comparing before and after images, with II further teaching comparing before and in-use images, the in-use images being taken at regular intervals throughout the rental period.
Kobayashi (US-20210272188-A1) and Stauffer (US-20170210352-A1) teach determining cleanliness of a car and notifying when cleaning is required, with Kobayashi further teaching a car sharing service and a user's indicating that the user performed interior cleaning of the car.
Asai (US-2020/0406866-A1) teaches capturing an image of a vehicle, analyzing the degree of dirt on a vehicle based on the image, and judging whether or not the vehicle needs to be washed based on the analysis result.
Guiseppe (IT MO20090215 A1) teaches taking video of the inside of a rental vehicle, before pickup and after return, and comparing the video to determine dirt and damage that accrued during the rental.
Tian (Dalian Roiland Technology Co Ltd) (CN 107784405 A) teaches a self-service return method for a vehicle sharing system based on real-time video, including initiating a real-time video connection by a vehicle user (rentee) through an app of the vehicle user, enabling a vehicle sharer (renter) to check the appearance and/or the interior of the vehicle in real time through videos, where the vehicle sharer checks the vehicle and confirms that no abnormity exists, the vehicle is checked to pass, and the user is relieved of further responsibility for the vehicle (e.g., for damage occurring afterward). See Abstract.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS W. PINSKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Note the individuals whom Hazleton calls "renters" ("individuals who own the one or more vehicles listed for rent") are generally referred to in this Office Action as "owners," and the individuals whom Hazleton calls "rentees" ("individuals who pay the renter to access the one or more vehicles listed for rent, to access vehicles") are generally referred to in this Office Action as "renters." See Hazleton, 0042.