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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 9/15/2025. Currently claims 1-19 are pending and claims 1, 5, and 10 are independent. Claims 1-3, 5 have been amended from the previous claim set dated 5/15/2024. No claims have been cancelled and claims 6-19 are new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-081822, filed on 5/17/2023.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action. In light of the amendments, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
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 1-19 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), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-19, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-4, 15-19) are directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture. Claim 5 and its dependent claims (claims 6-9) is directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 10 and its dependent claims (claims 11-14) is directed to a statutory category, namely a method
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 5, 10 which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “Concepts relating to commercial or legal interactions (including: advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to manage and analyze the process of driving someone’s vehicle to get recharged/refueled and then returning the vehicle. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a valet or concierge might perform for a client who wants to have their car serviced while out doing errands. The abstract elements of claims 1, 5, 10 recite in part “Accept user operation…Limit location…Transmit notification…Select service…”. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-19 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Present candidate locations…Output message…Display range…Transmit notification…Select closest location…Information includes…Request data includes…Instruction data includes…Set range…Parking information includes…Accept third operation…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 5, 10.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 5, 10 which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program…Server apparatus…Communication interface…Terminal apparatus…Mobile device…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-19 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 5, 10 which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program…Server apparatus…Communication interface…Terminal apparatus…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and analyze the process of driving someone’s vehicle to get recharged/refueled and then returning the vehicle) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0030] – “The processor is a general purpose processor such as a CPU or a GPU”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-19 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand et al. (US 20230394389 A1) in view of Tremblay (US 20150149221 A1) further in view of Genesis (Genesis Cares [online]. Genesis of Highland Park, 2022 [retrieved on 11/7/2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20220523031351/https://www.genesisofhighlandpark.com/genesis-cares#gencares>)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10, Anand discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided) to dispatch a service staff to a location in which a user vehicle is parked, cause the dispatched service staff to move the user vehicle to another location, and supply an energy source to the user vehicle in a location to which the user vehicle is moved (Anand ¶34 - the vehicle 106 may be in a second location (e.g., initial location of the vehicle 106) which is different from the first location (i.e., a location where the primary task is executable). the vehicle 106 may be parked for example, at a garage of the user 114 at the second location. The battery charging operation (i.e., primary task) may have to be performed at a charging station (located at the first location). The secondary task may include an operation to move the vehicle 106 to the determined first location from the second location, and an operation to return the vehicle to the second location (garage of the user 114) once the battery unit of the vehicle 106 is fully charged or is charged up to a level set by the user of the vehicle 106); and transmitting notification data indicating the location specified by the user operation as the return location (Anand ¶52 - The electronic device 102 may receive the service request which includes a primary task (for example, an operation to connect the vehicle 106 to an electric vehicle charger) and one or more secondary tasks (e.g., to move the vehicle 106 to a first location, to disconnect the electric vehicle charger once the SOC crosses a threshold SOC, or to return the vehicle 106 to a second location)), wherein the service includes an agent-type charging service and an agent-type battery replacement service, the agent-type charging service being a service in which the service staff is dispatched to the parking location, moves the user vehicle from the parking location to the supply location, charges a battery installed in the user vehicle in the supply location, and returns the user vehicle to the return location (Anand Fig. 5B), and the agent- type battery replacement service being a service in which the service staff is dispatched to the parking location, moves the user vehicle from the parking location to the supply location, replaces the battery with another battery in the supply location, and returns the user vehicle to the return location (Anand ¶87 - FIG. 6A is an exemplary scenario diagram that illustrates transmission of status of a service request associated with swapping or replacing a discharged battery unit of an electric vehicle, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure), wherein the server apparatus, in response to receiving the request data, automatically selects one of the agent-type charging service and the agent-type battery replacement service according to a positional relationship between the service staff and the parking location, and transmits instruction data to a mobile device held by the service staff, the instruction data instructing the service staff to provide the selected one of the agent-type charging service and the agent-type battery replacement service, and the instruction data including the information regarding the parking location (Anand ¶56 - By way of example, and not limitation, the first component to be replaced may be a discharged battery unit of the vehicle 106 and the second component to replace the first component may be a fully or partially charged battery unit. The fully or partially charged battery unit may be procured from the third location as a replacement for the discharged battery unit. In FIG. 4, the primary task of replacement of the first component with the second component is merely provided as an example and such an example should not be construed as limiting the disclosure. The present disclosure may be also applicable to other primary tasks, without a departure from the scope of the present disclosure. Example of such other tasks may include, but is not limited to, an operation to connect an EV charger to a charging unit of the vehicle 106, an operation to disconnect the EV charger from the charging unit of the vehicle 106, an operation to repair a component of the vehicle 106, an operation to report a state of charge of a battery unit of the vehicle 106, and an operation to refuel the vehicle 106… Anand ¶77 - The assignment may depend on one or more factors, such as availability of workers in a location or area, skillsets of the workers, a budget for fulfilment of the service request, an expected duration of fulfilment of the service request, and a type or a complexity (e.g., in terms of worker hours and a number of operations to be performed to complete a single task of the service request) of tasks in the service request) and wherein the server apparatus, in response to receiving the notification data, transmits the notification data to the mobile device to cause the service staff, who has been dispatched to the parking location and caused to charge or replace the battery of the user vehicle in the supply location, to return the user vehicle to the return location (Anand ¶65 - In accordance with an embodiment, the electronic device 102 may transmit a task alert to a device associated with the first worker 116A based on the assignment. Specifically, once the first worker 116A is identified, the electronic device 102 may send the task alert to the first worker device 108A. The task alert may specify the task, such as an operation to move the vehicle 106 to the first location from the second location. Upon sending the task alert, the electronic device 102 may receive a user input from the first worker device 108A. The user input may indicate a confirmation or an acknowledgement from the first worker 116A for the task specified in the task alert).
Anand lacks accepting a first user operation to specify the parking location, accepting a user operation to specify, as a return location in which the user vehicle is returned to a user after the user vehicle is picked up from the user in a parking location and an energy source is supplied to the user vehicle in a supply location, a location that is different from the parking location; and transmitting request data and notification data to the server apparatus, the request data requesting the server apparatus to provide the service, the request data including information regarding the parking location, and the notification data indicating the return location.
Tremblay, from the same field of endeavor, teaches accepting a first user operation to specify the parking location (Tremblay ¶245 - The electric vehicle 100 can be charged by an employee 230 who is tasked with charging of electric vehicles using the charge source 110 at the predetermined facility 800. This employee 230, who will be referred to as a "valet", picks up the electric vehicle 100 at the predetermined facility 800 (when the vehicle was brought there by the vehicle's user himself/herself or by another valet 230) or at a location remote from the predetermined facility 800 (at which the vehicle's user or another valet 230 parked the vehicle) and charges the electric vehicle 100 using the charge source 110 at the predetermined facility 800) accepting a user operation to specify, as a return location in which the user vehicle is returned to a user after the user vehicle is picked up from the user in a parking location and an energy source is supplied to the user vehicle in a supply location, a location that is different from the parking location (Tremblay ¶259 - In some embodiments, the electric vehicle 100 to be charged may be parked by the user at an initial parking spot, and then may be brought by the valet 230 to a specific parking spot at the predetermined facility 800. The specific parking spot may be equipped with the charge source 110 for charging the electric vehicle 100 (e.g., a mobile charging unit 300 or a stationary charging unit 320)…The vehicle 100 may then be returned to its initial parking spot where it may later be recovered by the user. In still other embodiments, the user may specify the parking spot where he or she would like to have the vehicle 100 returned to once charging has been completed); and transmitting request data and notification data to the server apparatus, the request data requesting the server apparatus to provide the service, the request data including information regarding the parking location, and the notification data indicating the return location (Tremblay ¶259 - Alternatively (e.g., if the initial parking spot is no longer available), the vehicle 100 may be driven by the valet 230 to a final parking spot, and the user may be advised (e.g., by text message or email or telephone call) as to the location of the user's vehicle 100 now that it has been charged).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the EV charging techniques of Tremblay because Tremblay discloses “The charging service may allow electric vehicles to be charged when certain conditions are met (e.g., at certain times, when certain battery charge levels are reached, when located at certain sites, etc.), without users of these electric vehicles having to charge the vehicles themselves (Tremblay ABS)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional EV charging techniques that Tremblay discloses because they would augment the service providing techniques of Anand by also including more charging options.
Anand further lacks limiting the return location to be specified by the second user operation to a first return location that exists within an allowable range from the supply location.
Genesis, from the same field of endeavor, teaches limiting the return location to be specified by the second user operation to a first return location that exists within an allowable range from the supply location (Genesis Service Valet is available for original purchaser of the vehicle from Authorized Genesis Retailers during the scheduled maintenance period which includes scheduled maintenance and normal wear, parts replacement or warranty repairs to your vehicle for 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first. Coverage area varies by retailer {i.e. allowable range}).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the service techniques of Genesis because Genesis discloses “we send a team member to pick up and drop off your Genesis vehicle for service while leaving you a courtesy replacement, ensuring an effortless and safe experience (Genesis)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional service techniques that Genesis discloses because they would improve the customer experience of the system of Anand by making it safer.
Regarding claim 2, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided).
Tremblay further teaches presenting one or more candidates for the location to be specified by the user operation to the user with reference to schedule data indicating a schedule of the user (Tremblay ¶183 - For a particular electric vehicle 100, the charging rules can include the charging rules 178 stored in the account information for the particular electric vehicle. These charging rules 178 may be of varying types, including: [0184] time-based charging rules, such as schedule-based charging rules (e.g., charge every Monday and Thursday between 10 am and 4 pm) or other charging rules based on time (e.g., a particular day, a particular time of day, etc.); [0185] battery-level-based charging rules (e.g., charge when the vehicle's battery charge level has dropped below 50%, or is expected to drop below 30% in the next 24 hours); [0186] location-based charging rules (e.g., charge when the vehicle is parked on level P3 of a parking garage); [0187] event-based charging rules (e.g., charge my vehicle during a stay at a hotel); [0188] hybrid charging rules including one or more of the above (or other) types of charging rules (e.g., charge every Monday, Wednesday and Friday but only if the battery charge level is at 50% or less); [0189] etc)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the EV charging techniques of Tremblay because Tremblay discloses “The charging service may allow electric vehicles to be charged when certain conditions are met (e.g., at certain times, when certain battery charge levels are reached, when located at certain sites, etc.), without users of these electric vehicles having to charge the vehicles themselves (Tremblay ABS)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional EV charging techniques that Tremblay discloses because they would augment the service providing techniques of Anand by also including more charging options.
Regarding claim 4, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses displaying the allowable range on a map (Anand ¶86 - In accordance with an embodiment, the electronic device 102 may control the service client 518 to display the service request status 520 on a map).
Regarding claim 6, 11 Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the notification data via the communication interface to the mobile device within a period from when the request data is transmitted until the user vehicle is picked up from the user in the parking location and the charging or the replacement of the battery of the user vehicle in the supply location is completed (Anand Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 7, 12, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses the controller is further configured to, when there are two or more options for the supply location, automatically select a first supply location closest to the return location and transmit information regarding the first supply location via the communication interface to the mobile device (Anand ¶59 - The selection of the store within the threshold distance may minimize at least one of: time required for a worker to reach the third location from a present location of the worker, a time required for the worker to reach the first location from the third location, a charge/fuel required for the worker to travel to the third location from the present location, and charge/fuel required for the worker to travel to the first location from the third location. If the second component is not available at any store that is within the threshold distance, then a store that is closest to the first location and the second location may be selected for procurement. The distance of such a store from the first location or the second location may be more than the threshold distance).
Regarding claim 9, 14, 19, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses the request data further includes data indicating a desired dispatch time and a desired return time which are specified by the user, the desired dispatch time corresponding to a desired time when the service staff picks up the user vehicle, and the desired return time corresponding to a desired time when the service staff returns the user vehicle after charging or replacing the battery of the user vehicle, and the instruction data further includes the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time (Anand ¶31 - Efficient identification of the pool of workers may ensure that the tasks associated with a service request are completed within allocated time with a minimum delay… Anand ¶77 - The assignment may depend on one or more factors, such as availability of workers in a location or area, skillsets of the workers, a budget for fulfilment of the service request, an expected duration of fulfilment of the service request {i.e. start time and end time}).
Regarding claim 15, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided).
Genesis further teaches wherein a shape and a size of the allowable range is set uniformly regardless of where the supply location is located (Genesis - At your convenience, Service Valet can perform remote diagnostics to assess your vehicle’s needs and have it picked up from your home or office for any necessary service at your nearest Genesis Retailer).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the service techniques of Genesis because Genesis discloses “we send a team member to pick up and drop off your Genesis vehicle for service while leaving you a courtesy replacement, ensuring an effortless and safe experience (Genesis)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional service techniques that Genesis discloses because they would improve the customer experience of the system of Anand by making it safer.
Regarding claim 16, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided).
Genesis further teaches a shape and a size of the allowable range is set individually for each supply location in advance (Genesis - Coverage area varies by retailer).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the service techniques of Genesis because Genesis discloses “we send a team member to pick up and drop off your Genesis vehicle for service while leaving you a courtesy replacement, ensuring an effortless and safe experience (Genesis)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional service techniques that Genesis discloses because they would improve the customer experience of the system of Anand by making it safer.
Regarding claim 17, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided).
Tremblay further teaches a shape and a size of the allowable range is set dynamically according to traffic conditions around the supply location (Tremblay ¶202 - Still other charging rules that could be defined by the charging service provider are not specific to the electric vehicle 100, but are more general in nature. For example, if the charging service provider knows of a power outage that has occurred in certain parts of the city, or knows of an expected (e.g., rotating) power blackout, or has knowledge of a traffic jam in a specific location, actions could be taken to charge (or refrain from charging) certain electric vehicles in certain areas and at certain times, for a variety of reasons (e.g., in order to optimize resources or management of the electric power grid, etc.). Thus, other examples of parameter values to which the charging rules are applied may include an indication of a power outage (e.g., past, current or expected) or an indication of traffic conditions (e.g., current or expected)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the EV charging techniques of Tremblay because Tremblay discloses “The charging service may allow electric vehicles to be charged when certain conditions are met (e.g., at certain times, when certain battery charge levels are reached, when located at certain sites, etc.), without users of these electric vehicles having to charge the vehicles themselves (Tremblay ABS)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional EV charging techniques that Tremblay discloses because they would augment the service providing techniques of Anand by also including more charging options.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand et al. (US 20230394389 A1) in view of Tremblay (US 20150149221 A1) further in view of Genesis (Genesis Cares [online]. Genesis of Highland Park, 2022 [retrieved on 11/7/2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20220523031351/https://www.genesisofhighlandpark.com/genesis-cares#gencares>) further in view of Sharma Banjade et al. (US 20250128698 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided).
Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis lacks upon a location that exists outside of the allowable range being specified as the return location, outputting a message prompting the user to change a location to specify.
Sharma Banjade, from the same field of endeavor, teaches upon a location that exists outside of the allowable range being specified as the return location, outputting a message prompting the user to change a location to specify (Sharma Banjade Fig. 11 – ¶164 - In Example 7, the subject matter of Example 6 optionally includes wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: transmit a parking status message to the vehicle, the parking status message including one or more of, a parking availability status of a parking area {i.e. inside/outside of range}, a wait time, or a timestamp; receive a parking request in response to the transmitted parking status message, the parking request including one or more of, a desired parking duration, a desired parking distance, a desired re-parking service, wherein the re-parking service includes moving the vehicle from the parking location to a second parking location {i.e. changed location}).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the parking management techniques of Sharma Banjade because Sharma Banjade discloses “In an example, the parking management personnel 1366 may be located on-site at the parking facility to perform services like plugging in vehicles without autonomous charging capability, moving vehicles without autonomous driving capability, washing, or cleaning vehicles, performing oil changes on non-electric vehicles, or the like. (Sharma Banjade ¶115)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional parking management techniques that Tremblay discloses because they would augment the service providing techniques of Anand by providing those services at the parking facility.
Claims 8, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand et al. (US 20230394389 A1) in view of Tremblay (US 20150149221 A1) further in view of Genesis (Genesis Cares [online]. Genesis of Highland Park, 2022 [retrieved on 11/7/2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20220523031351/https://www.genesisofhighlandpark.com/genesis-cares#gencares>) further in view of Shoen et al. (US 20180225749 A1)
Regarding claims 8, 13, 18, Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program for requesting a service (Anand ABS - An electronic device and method for managing tasks related to service requests for a vehicle is provided).
Anand in view of Tremblay further in view of Genesis lacks the information regarding the parking location includes a photograph of an area around the user vehicle when the user has already parked the user vehicle in the parking location.
Shoen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the information regarding the parking location includes a photograph of an area around the user vehicle when the user has already parked the user vehicle in the parking location (Schoen ¶8 - In some embodiments, the processor is operative to confirm via the mobile device that the customer is at the rental pickup location by prompting the customer to include in the uploaded customer image the customer's surroundings showing that the customer is physically present at the rental location or near the rental vehicle).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the service management methodology/system of Anand by including the vehicle rental techniques of Shoen because Shoen discloses “allows a customer to dispatch the vehicle and return the vehicle using the customer's mobile device, without requiring special equipment in the rental vehicle and without requiring the presence of rental personnel at the dispatch location or return location (Shoen ¶3)”. Additionally, Anand further details that it “The worker may go to a location to find the vehicle that the owner has requested to be charged. The worker may pick up the vehicle from the location and may drive the vehicle to a charging location (Anand ¶17)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional vehicle rental techniques that Shoen discloses because they would enable the worker to more easily access the users vehicle by not requiring them to be present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
As identified above and in light of the amendments, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to USPTO guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant specifically argues that the claims are patent eligible because they contained additional elements which are significantly more (overcomes rejection within the Step 2B analysis). Examiner does not find this persuasive because the identified elements are not interpreted as being additional elements, but part of the abstract idea itself. The elements identified by Examiner that are considered additional elements are “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a terminal program…Server apparatus…Communication interface…Terminal apparatus…” and these items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and analyze the process of driving someone’s vehicle to get recharged/refueled and then returning the vehicle) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Because these items are evaluated under MPEP 2106.05(f), they are not evaluated under MPEP 2106.05(d) (standard, routine, and conventional).
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections on the previous Office action, Applicant amended the independent claims to further limit the claims with respect to clarifying the service area. In light of this amendment, Examiner agrees that the original references did not clearly teach this, however the amendment necessitated further search and consideration. As a result of this further search and consideration, prior art was found that does teach these limitations (Genesis valet service as discussed above). As such, Applicant’s arguments (with respect to the independent claims and their respective dependent claims) are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624