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 .
This is a Non-Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election traverse of Invention II (Claims 3-12) in the reply filed on December 23rd, 2025 in response to the Office Action dated November 17th, 2025 is acknowledged. The Applicant states (Amend. 1-2) that “the assertion that the inventions have limitations that do not read on each other is insufficient to establish distinctness. Invention I and Invention II share a single general inventive concept, involve overlapping search fields, and do not create a distinct burden for examination”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the previous Office Action dated November 17th, 2025, Inventions I and II contain limitations that would not read on each other, and an explanation was provided as to how each invention belonged to separate and distinct fields of search, where each invention requires searching in different classifications and divergent search terminology is required for the variant concepts. Accordingly, a prima facie case of a serious burden on the examiner was established. Therefore, claims 2-12 are currently pending and are examined below. Claims 1-2 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 18th, 2024 and January 29th, 2025 has been considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-12 do not have the appropriate status identifiers. See MPEP 714 II(c) For any amendment being filed in response to a restriction or election of species requirement and any subsequent amendment, any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn – currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the screening part being configured to set” in at least claim 3
“the returning-delay risk determination part being configured to acquire” in at least claim 3
“an alert part that causes” in at least claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The published specification provides a corresponding structure for the above claim limitations in at least paragraphs 20-21.
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.
Contingent Limitations
Claims 5-6 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 5: “wherein when the store-containing zone contains a plurality of stores”
Claim 6: “wherein, for each of mobile body-containing zones being the mobile body-containing zone, when a plurality of mobile bodies whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone are located in the mobile body-containing zone,”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitations (1)-(2) as noted above is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim 3, the claim recites the abstract idea of setting a location for a rental vehicle return and the determination of a risk of delay for the return of the vehicle, and mentally determine “a management server configured to manage a location and a returning deadline of each of a plurality of mobile bodies, the management server including a screening part and a returning-delay risk determination part, and the screening part being configured to set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones, determine absence or presence of an arisen risk of returning delay of each of the one or more mobile bodies based on a time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of a corresponding mobile body of the one or more mobile bodies”, where these claims fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitation encompasses mentally setting a location for a rental vehicle return and the determination of a risk of delay for the return of the vehicle provided by the car’s sensors while traveling, or alternatively, mentally setting a location for a rental vehicle return and the determination of a risk of delay for the return of the vehicle based on observations by a human.
For example, a human could mentally and with the aid of pen and paper set a location for a rental vehicle return and determine of a risk of delay for the return of the vehicle.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of a management server, a screening part, and a returning-delay risk determination part are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
In addition, the limitation “the management server determining, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a returning location of each of the plurality of mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, acquire an estimated arrival time to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a current time as a departure time, setting the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and setting the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the destination, and from the mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, extract one or more mobile bodies whose time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and a returning deadline is smaller than a predetermined level, and the returning-delay risk determination part being configured to acquire an estimated arrival time of each of the one or more mobile bodies extracted by the screening part to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a current time as a departure time, a location of each of the one or more mobile bodies as a departure point, and the store that is a returning location of each of the one or more mobile bodies as a destination” constitutes insignificant presolution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff' d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a management server, a screening part, and a returning-delay risk determination part does not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims 3-12 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant claimed invention, when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Accordingly, claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawatari (US 20040193440 A1) (“Mawatari”) in view of Kamisawa (US 20150348179 A1) (“Kamisawa”) in view of Lothman (US 20220300878 A1) (“Lothman”).
With respect to claim 3, Mawatari teaches A mobile body management system configured to manage returning deadlines of rented mobile bodies, the mobile body management system comprising:
a management server configured to manage a location and a returning deadline of each of a plurality of mobile bodies (See at least Mawatari Paragraphs 6-7 “”),
the management server including a returning-delay risk determination part, and acquire an estimated arrival time to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a current time as a departure time, and the returning-delay risk determination part being configured to acquire an estimated arrival time of each of the one or more mobile bodies to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a current time as a departure time, a location of each of the one or more mobile bodies as a departure point, and the store that is a returning location of each of the one or more mobile bodies as a destination, and determine absence or presence of an arisen risk of returning delay of each of the one or more mobile bodies based on a time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of a corresponding mobile body of the one or more mobile bodies (See at least Mawatari FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 29-34 “FIG. 5 illustrates another example of the rental request screen displayed on the user terminal 30. In the screen shown in FIG. 5, a rent-a-car list including items of a desired vehicle type 34 and a vehicle selection button 35 is indicated. When the user inputs vehicle selection information through the user terminal 30, in step S13, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives the vehicle selection information. In step S 14, the rent-a-car management program 11 reads the rental fee 43 from the rent-a-car management database 40 for the vehicle selected in step S13, and calculates a rental fee based on rental period information determined from the scheduled return due time and date 33 and the scheduled rental-start time and date 32 input by the user and sends the calculated rental fee to the user terminal 30. FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the screen when the rental fee is indicated In step S 15, when the user checks and determines the rental information displayed on the user terminal 30, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives a confirmation signal. In step S16, the rent-a-car management program 11 inputs the scheduled rental-start time and date 32 and the scheduled return due time and date 33 into the items of the next scheduled-rental time and date 46 and the next scheduled-rental return due time and date 47, respectively, of the corresponding record. The rental request processing is then completed. In this embodiment, when the user selects the desired vehicle type and presses the “OK” button on the screen in FIG. 5, the rental fee is displayed on the screen in FIG. 6. However, the rental fee may be displayed together with the desired vehicle type on the screen in FIG. 5. Processing for displaying rent-a-car return information for a car which is now being rented is described below with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 7. In this embodiment, processing for displaying rent-a-car return information is performed at regular intervals. In step S 21, the rent-a-car management program 11 refers to the current status 44 of the rent-a-car management database 40 and reads a rent-a-car record which is now being rented. Then, in step S22, the rent-a-car management program 11 sends, based on the rent-a-car ID number 41 of the record read in step S22, a request to send back information concerning the current position of the rent-a-car. Upon receiving the request from the rent- a-car management program 11, the rent-a-car terminal 20 of the car calculates a current position by using the GPS function, and sends the current position information to the rent-a-car management program 11. In step S23, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives the current position information of the car from the rent-a-car terminal 20. In step S24, the rent-a-car management program 11 calculates a time required for the rent-a-car to travel to the nearest return place based on the current position information received in step S23, and the information concerning the nearest return place, the traffic congestion state, etc. In step S 25, the rent-a-car management program 11 compares the return traveling time required for the rent-a-car to travel to the return place calculated in step S24 with a remaining time determined from the difference between the return due time and date 45 and the current time, and determines whether the remaining time is greater than the return traveling time. If the outcome of step S25 is YES, i.e., if there is a time allowance before the due time, the process proceeds to step S27. If it is determined in step S25 that the return traveling time is greater than or equal to the remaining time, i.e., if the user seems to be late for the return due time and date 45 unless he/she moves to the return place immediately, the process proceeds to step S26.”).
Mawatari, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the management server including a screening part, and the management server determining, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a returning location of each of the plurality of mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, the screening part being configured to set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones, setting the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and setting the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the destination, and from the mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, extract one or more mobile bodies whose time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and a returning deadline is smaller than a predetermined level, and acquire an estimated arrival time of each of the one or more mobile bodies extracted by the screening part.
Kamisawa teaches that that the management server including a screening part, and the management server determining, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a returning location of each of the plurality of mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, the screening part being configured to set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones (See at least Kamisawa FIG. 7 and Paragraphs 145-147 “Firstly, an operation for making a reservation will be described. As illustrated in FIG. 7, if the customer U1 currently using the vehicle C manipulates the mobile terminal M1 by starting a vehicle rental management application and pressing a rental setting starting button for setting a return site (S101), the usage information transmitting unit 16 transmits a manipulation signal intending to start setting a return site together with a customer ID to the vehicle rental management server 2 (S102). In the vehicle rental management server 2, when the manipulation signal intending to start setting a return site is acquired from the mobile terminal M1 (S103), the authentication unit 221 performs an authentication process with the customer ID or a vehicle ID. If authenticated, the return receiving unit 223 b extracts latest information about a vacant space in each store, selects a store having a vacant space, and transmits a store ID to the vehicle-mounted terminal 6 (S104). Then, based on the store ID, the UI control unit 17 a displays, on a screen, information about the store to which the vehicle can be returned (S105). Further, if information intending to request a rental reservation is received from the vehicle rental management server 2, based on map information, the arrival information notifying unit 17 c displays, as a candidate site, a designated and desired site so as to be selected. Then, if the store as a return site is selected by manipulation of the customer U1 (S106), the arrival information notifying unit 17 c acquires position information from the GPS receiver 65 b (S107), calculates an estimated arrival time at the return site (S108), and notifies the vehicle rental management server 2 of the estimated arrival time and the information about the return site store as arrival information (S109). The return receiving unit 223 b acquires the arrival information (5110) and records a store ID of the return site and the estimated arrival time in the usage condition database 234 (S111).”),
setting the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and setting the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the destination (See at least Kamisawa FIG. 7 and Paragraph 147 “Then, if the store as a return site is selected by manipulation of the customer U1 (S106), the arrival information notifying unit 17 c acquires position information from the GPS receiver 65 b (S107), calculates an estimated arrival time at the return site (S108), and notifies the vehicle rental management server 2 of the estimated arrival time and the information about the return site store as arrival information (S109). The return receiving unit 223 b acquires the arrival information (5110) and records a store ID of the return site and the estimated arrival time in the usage condition database 234 (S111).”), and
from the mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone (See at least Kamisawa FIG. 12 and Paragraphs 162-164 “Then, when the return receiving unit 223 b acquires information of a store as a return site from the mobile terminal M1 and arrival information including a an estimated arrival time (S507), based on a store ID, the return receiving unit 223 b determines whether or not the store is a store in the preset area requested to be reserved for rental (S508). If the store is a store in the area set by the rental reservation request (“Y” of S508), information about the store and a time available for rental are transmitted to the mobile terminal M2 of the next customer U2 making the rental reservation request (S509). The UI control unit 17 a displays the information about the store as a return site of the vehicle and the time information on the screen (S515). Then, if the next customer U2 executes a manipulation intending to confirm rental in the store, the reservation setting unit 17 b transmits such confirmation information to the vehicle rental management server 2 (S516). Thereafter, the reservation receiving unit 223 a acquires such reservation information and renews the rental reservation request information to confirm the reservation (S517). On the other hand, if the store selected as a return site is not a store in the area set by the rental reservation request (“N” of S508), it is determined whether or not the store is a store in an adjacent area (S510). If the store is not a store in an adjacent area (“N” of S510), the process from the step S507 to the step S510 is repeated until the time information of the rental reservation request passes. After the time information of the rental reservation request passes, the mobile terminal M2 is notified that there is no store available to rent, and the process is ended. On the other hand, if the store is a store in an adjacent area (“Y” of S510), a message requesting a change of a return site is transmitted to the mobile terminal M1 in use (S511).”).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kamisawa to include that that the management server including a screening part, and the management server determining, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a returning location of each of the plurality of mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, the screening part being configured to set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones setting the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and setting the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the destination from the mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, as taught by Kamisawa as disclosed above, in order to determine accurate locations for vehicle returns (Kamisawa Paragraph 14 “An object of the present invention is to provide a technique that can improve convenience of a vehicle rental service in which a vehicle is rented and returned in a predetermined parking site.”).
Mawatari in view of Kamisawa fail to explicitly disclose to extract one or more mobile bodies whose time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and a returning deadline is smaller than a predetermined level, and acquire an estimated arrival time of each of the one or more mobile bodies extracted by the screening part.
Lothman teaches to extract one or more mobile bodies whose time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and a returning deadline is smaller than a predetermined level, and acquire an estimated arrival time of each of the one or more mobile bodies extracted by the screening part (See at least Lothman FIG. 18 and Paragraphs 172-173 “For example, in some embodiments, the departure recommendation component 1802 can monitor the location of the rental vehicle relative to the scheduled return location based on tracked vehicle location information received by the tracking component 222 as the scheduled return time approaches. The departure recommendation component 1802 can further regularly and/or continuously determine and track how long (e.g., the return travel time) it will take for the rental vehicle to make it the scheduled return location in real-time based on the current location of the rental vehicle relative to the return location and the fastest route to the return location from the vehicle's current location based on available routes and traffic data (e.g., as received from one or more external systems/sources 102). In some embodiments, the departure recommendation component 1802 can also factor in time needed for refueling or recharging based on the current fuel/charge level of the vehicle and whether the renter has agreed to assume responsibility of refueling/recharging in the rental agreement. The departure recommendation component 1802 can also factor current and forecasted queue return times at the rental vehicle return facility. In this regard, the departure recommendation component 1802 can regularly or continuously calculate the return travel time as the location of the vehicle changes and the traffic conditions change. The departure recommendation component 1802 can further monitor the return travel time relative to the scheduled return time to determine when the renter vehicle should depart its current location to make it to the return location in time. For example, departure recommendation component 1802 can determine when the return travel time is approaching (e.g., within a defined time window) the current amount of time needed to arrive at the scheduled return location at the scheduled return time. For instance, the departure recommendation component 1802 can determine when the return travel time is N minutes greater (e.g., 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, etc.) than the current amount of time needed to arrive at the scheduled return location at the scheduled return time. In some implementations, the departure recommendation component 1802 can begin calculating the return travel time within a defined time window relative to the scheduled return time (e.g., 30 minutes before, 1 hour before, 2 hours before, 6 hours before, etc.). For example, if the rental vehicle booking is longer than a 24-hour period, the departure recommendation component 1802 can forgo calculating the return travel time until the return time window becomes relevant.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mawatari in view of Kamisawa to include to extract one or more mobile bodies whose time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and a returning deadline is smaller than a predetermined level, and acquire an estimated arrival time of each of the one or more mobile bodies extracted by the screening part, as taught by Lothman as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal timing of vehicle returns (Lothman Paragraph 2 “This application relates to techniques for optimizing various aspects of rental vehicle systems”).
With respect to claim 4, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman teach a mobile body terminal mounted in each of the plurality of mobile bodies, and capable of communicating with the management server, wherein the management server further includes an alert part that causes the mobile body terminal of each of the one or more mobile bodies, which are determined as having the arisen risk of returning delay by the returning-delay risk determination part, to alert and warn a user of each of the one or more mobile bodies of a returning delay (See at least Lothman Paragraph 174 “The notification component 1804 can further send a departure notification to a current renter of the rental vehicle prior to the recommended departure time indicating the recommended departure time based on the return travel time being at or near the current amount of time needed to arrive at the scheduled return location at the scheduled return time. For example, the notification component 1804 can be configured to notify the current renter N minutes before they should leave their current location to return back to the rental vehicle station in order to make it there by their scheduled return time. For example, the notification component 1804 can send a departure recommendation notification to device associated with the renter (e.g., their smartphone, their smartwatch, a notification system inside the rental vehicle itself, etc.) at or near the recommended departure time prompting the renter to head to the return facility.” | Paragraph 181 “In accordance with method 1900, at 1902, a system operatively coupled to a processor (e.g., system 100), can determine (e.g., using departure recommendation component 1802) a recommend departure time at which a rental vehicle should initiate a route to a rental vehicle return location based on a current time, a scheduled return time for the rental vehicle, a current location of the rental vehicle, and traffic data associated with the route. At 1904 the system can further send a departure notification to a current renter of the rental vehicle indicating the recommended departure time (e.g., using notification component 1804). For example, the departure notification can be sent to a personal computing device associated with the current renter (e.g., their smartphone, smartwatch, etc.), and/or to an in-vehicle notification system.”).
With respect to claim 5, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (1) as noted above, such as a screening part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 5 are performed by a screening part (Spec. FIG. 1, 5 “Map Service Server”). Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman disclose the same structure (Kamisawa Paragraph 18 “According to still another aspect of the present invention, a vehicle rental customer terminal that can communicate a vehicle rental management server that manages a vehicle rental business of renting a vehicle to a customer, and is used by the customer includes a communication interface that transmits/receives a signal to/from the vehicle rental management server, and a control unit that communicates with the vehicle rental management server using the communication interface, wherein when the customer makes a return reservation for a vehicle being rented, the control unit transmits customer identification information of the customer or vehicle identification information of the vehicle and a desired return time or a desired return area input by the customer to the vehicle rental management server, receives parking sites or future times that can be used for return of the vehicle relating to the return reservation from the vehicle rental management server, suggests the received parking sites or future times to the customer so as to recommend the customer to select, and notifies the vehicle rental management server of the selected parking site or future time.”) such that Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman disclose a structure capable of performing limitation (1).
With respect to claim 6, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (2) as noted above, such as a screening part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 6 are performed by a screening part (Spec. FIG. 1, 5 “Map Service Server”). Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman disclose the same structure (Kamisawa Paragraph 18 “According to still another aspect of the present invention, a vehicle rental customer terminal that can communicate a vehicle rental management server that manages a vehicle rental business of renting a vehicle to a customer, and is used by the customer includes a communication interface that transmits/receives a signal to/from the vehicle rental management server, and a control unit that communicates with the vehicle rental management server using the communication interface, wherein when the customer makes a return reservation for a vehicle being rented, the control unit transmits customer identification information of the customer or vehicle identification information of the vehicle and a desired return time or a desired return area input by the customer to the vehicle rental management server, receives parking sites or future times that can be used for return of the vehicle relating to the return reservation from the vehicle rental management server, suggests the received parking sites or future times to the customer so as to recommend the customer to select, and notifies the vehicle rental management server of the selected parking site or future time.”) such that Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman disclose a structure capable of performing limitation (2).
With respect to claim 11, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman teach that the screening part is configured to acquire an estimated arrival time to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a current time as a departure time, the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the destination using a service that searches a route and an estimated arrival time of the searched route, which is provided by an external service server, and the returning-delay risk determination part is configured to acquire an estimated arrival time to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a current time as a departure time, a location of the mobile body as a departure point, and a store that is a returning location of the mobile body as the destination using the service provided by the external service server (See at least Kamisawa FIGS. 7 and 12 and Paragraph 147 “Then, if the store as a return site is selected by manipulation of the customer U1 (S106), the arrival information notifying unit 17 c acquires position information from the GPS receiver 65 b (S107), calculates an estimated arrival time at the return site (S108), and notifies the vehicle rental management server 2 of the estimated arrival time and the information about the return site store as arrival information (S109). The return receiving unit 223 b acquires the arrival information (5110) and records a store ID of the return site and the estimated arrival time in the usage condition database 234 (S111).” | Paragraphs 162-164 “Then, when the return receiving unit 223 b acquires information of a store as a return site from the mobile terminal M1 and arrival information including a an estimated arrival time (S507), based on a store ID, the return receiving unit 223 b determines whether or not the store is a store in the preset area requested to be reserved for rental (S508). If the store is a store in the area set by the rental reservation request (“Y” of S508), information about the store and a time available for rental are transmitted to the mobile terminal M2 of the next customer U2 making the rental reservation request (S509). The UI control unit 17 a displays the information about the store as a return site of the vehicle and the time information on the screen (S515). Then, if the next customer U2 executes a manipulation intending to confirm rental in the store, the reservation setting unit 17 b transmits such confirmation information to the vehicle rental management server 2 (S516). Thereafter, the reservation receiving unit 223 a acquires such reservation information and renews the rental reservation request information to confirm the reservation (S517). On the other hand, if the store selected as a return site is not a store in the area set by the rental reservation request (“N” of S508), it is determined whether or not the store is a store in an adjacent area (S510). If the store is not a store in an adjacent area (“N” of S510), the process from the step S507 to the step S510 is repeated until the time information of the rental reservation request passes. After the time information of the rental reservation request passes, the mobile terminal M2 is notified that there is no store available to rent, and the process is ended. On the other hand, if the store is a store in an adjacent area (“Y” of S510), a message requesting a change of a return site is transmitted to the mobile terminal M1 in use (S511).”) (See at least Mawatari FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 29-34 “FIG. 5 illustrates another example of the rental request screen displayed on the user terminal 30. In the screen shown in FIG. 5, a rent-a-car list including items of a desired vehicle type 34 and a vehicle selection button 35 is indicated. When the user inputs vehicle selection information through the user terminal 30, in step S13, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives the vehicle selection information. In step S 14, the rent-a-car management program 11 reads the rental fee 43 from the rent-a-car management database 40 for the vehicle selected in step S13, and calculates a rental fee based on rental period information determined from the scheduled return due time and date 33 and the scheduled rental-start time and date 32 input by the user and sends the calculated rental fee to the user terminal 30. FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the screen when the rental fee is indicated In step S 15, when the user checks and determines the rental information displayed on the user terminal 30, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives a confirmation signal. In step S16, the rent-a-car management program 11 inputs the scheduled rental-start time and date 32 and the scheduled return due time and date 33 into the items of the next scheduled-rental time and date 46 and the next scheduled-rental return due time and date 47, respectively, of the corresponding record. The rental request processing is then completed. In this embodiment, when the user selects the desired vehicle type and presses the “OK” button on the screen in FIG. 5, the rental fee is displayed on the screen in FIG. 6. However, the rental fee may be displayed together with the desired vehicle type on the screen in FIG. 5. Processing for displaying rent-a-car return information for a car which is now being rented is described below with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 7. In this embodiment, processing for displaying rent-a-car return information is performed at regular intervals. In step S 21, the rent-a-car management program 11 refers to the current status 44 of the rent-a-car management database 40 and reads a rent-a-car record which is now being rented. Then, in step S22, the rent-a-car management program 11 sends, based on the rent-a-car ID number 41 of the record read in step S22, a request to send back information concerning the current position of the rent-a-car. Upon receiving the request from the rent- a-car management program 11, the rent-a-car terminal 20 of the car calculates a current position by using the GPS function, and sends the current position information to the rent-a-car management program 11. In step S23, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives the current position information of the car from the rent-a-car terminal 20. In step S24, the rent-a-car management program 11 calculates a time required for the rent-a-car to travel to the nearest return place based on the current position information received in step S23, and the information concerning the nearest return place, the traffic congestion state, etc. In step S 25, the rent-a-car management program 11 compares the return traveling time required for the rent-a-car to travel to the return place calculated in step S24 with a remaining time determined from the difference between the return due time and date 45 and the current time, and determines whether the remaining time is greater than the return traveling time. If the outcome of step S25 is YES, i.e., if there is a time allowance before the due time, the process proceeds to step S27. If it is determined in step S25 that the return traveling time is greater than or equal to the remaining time, i.e., if the user seems to be late for the return due time and date 45 unless he/she moves to the return place immediately, the process proceeds to step S26.”).
With respect to claim 12, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman teach that the screening part is configured to among the zones predetermined by dividing the geographical range, determine zones in which the at least one store that is a returning location of one or more corresponding mobile bodies of the plurality of mobile bodies is located as store-containing zones, and zones in which the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning locations are the at least one store in a corresponding store-containing zone of the store-containing zones are located as mobile-body containing zones of the corresponding store-containing zone, acquire an estimated arrival time to a destination of a traveling route searched by setting a store representative point in the corresponding store-containing zone, setting a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones of the corresponding store-containing zone, setting a current time as a departure time, setting the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and setting the store representative point of the corresponding store-containing zone as the destination, and extract, from the mobile bodies which are located in said each of the mobile body-containing zones and whose returning locations are the at least one store in the corresponding store-containing zone, one or more mobile bodies whose time margin between the acquired estimated arrival time and a returning deadline of a corresponding mobile body of the one or more mobile bodies is smaller than a predetermined level (See at least Kamisawa FIGS. 7 and 12 and Paragraph 147 “Then, if the store as a return site is selected by manipulation of the customer U1 (S106), the arrival information notifying unit 17 c acquires position information from the GPS receiver 65 b (S107), calculates an estimated arrival time at the return site (S108), and notifies the vehicle rental management server 2 of the estimated arrival time and the information about the return site store as arrival information (S109). The return receiving unit 223 b acquires the arrival information (5110) and records a store ID of the return site and the estimated arrival time in the usage condition database 234 (S111).” | Paragraphs 162-164 “Then, when the return receiving unit 223 b acquires information of a store as a return site from the mobile terminal M1 and arrival information including a an estimated arrival time (S507), based on a store ID, the return receiving unit 223 b determines whether or not the store is a store in the preset area requested to be reserved for rental (S508). If the store is a store in the area set by the rental reservation request (“Y” of S508), information about the store and a time available for rental are transmitted to the mobile terminal M2 of the next customer U2 making the rental reservation request (S509). The UI control unit 17 a displays the information about the store as a return site of the vehicle and the time information on the screen (S515). Then, if the next customer U2 executes a manipulation intending to confirm rental in the store, the reservation setting unit 17 b transmits such confirmation information to the vehicle rental management server 2 (S516). Thereafter, the reservation receiving unit 223 a acquires such reservation information and renews the rental reservation request information to confirm the reservation (S517). On the other hand, if the store selected as a return site is not a store in the area set by the rental reservation request (“N” of S508), it is determined whether or not the store is a store in an adjacent area (S510). If the store is not a store in an adjacent area (“N” of S510), the process from the step S507 to the step S510 is repeated until the time information of the rental reservation request passes. After the time information of the rental reservation request passes, the mobile terminal M2 is notified that there is no store available to rent, and the process is ended. On the other hand, if the store is a store in an adjacent area (“Y” of S510), a message requesting a change of a return site is transmitted to the mobile terminal M1 in use (S511).”) (See at least Mawatari FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 29-34 “FIG. 5 illustrates another example of the rental request screen displayed on the user terminal 30. In the screen shown in FIG. 5, a rent-a-car list including items of a desired vehicle type 34 and a vehicle selection button 35 is indicated. When the user inputs vehicle selection information through the user terminal 30, in step S13, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives the vehicle selection information. In step S 14, the rent-a-car management program 11 reads the rental fee 43 from the rent-a-car management database 40 for the vehicle selected in step S13, and calculates a rental fee based on rental period information determined from the scheduled return due time and date 33 and the scheduled rental-start time and date 32 input by the user and sends the calculated rental fee to the user terminal 30. FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the screen when the rental fee is indicated In step S 15, when the user checks and determines the rental information displayed on the user terminal 30, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives a confirmation signal. In step S16, the rent-a-car management program 11 inputs the scheduled rental-start time and date 32 and the scheduled return due time and date 33 into the items of the next scheduled-rental time and date 46 and the next scheduled-rental return due time and date 47, respectively, of the corresponding record. The rental request processing is then completed. In this embodiment, when the user selects the desired vehicle type and presses the “OK” button on the screen in FIG. 5, the rental fee is displayed on the screen in FIG. 6. However, the rental fee may be displayed together with the desired vehicle type on the screen in FIG. 5. Processing for displaying rent-a-car return information for a car which is now being rented is described below with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 7. In this embodiment, processing for displaying rent-a-car return information is performed at regular intervals. In step S 21, the rent-a-car management program 11 refers to the current status 44 of the rent-a-car management database 40 and reads a rent-a-car record which is now being rented. Then, in step S22, the rent-a-car management program 11 sends, based on the rent-a-car ID number 41 of the record read in step S22, a request to send back information concerning the current position of the rent-a-car. Upon receiving the request from the rent- a-car management program 11, the rent-a-car terminal 20 of the car calculates a current position by using the GPS function, and sends the current position information to the rent-a-car management program 11. In step S23, the rent-a-car management program 11 receives the current position information of the car from the rent-a-car terminal 20. In step S24, the rent-a-car management program 11 calculates a time required for the rent-a-car to travel to the nearest return place based on the current position information received in step S23, and the information concerning the nearest return place, the traffic congestion state, etc. In step S 25, the rent-a-car management program 11 compares the return traveling time required for the rent-a-car to travel to the return place calculated in step S24 with a remaining time determined from the difference between the return due time and date 45 and the current time, and determines whether the remaining time is greater than the return traveling time. If the outcome of step S25 is YES, i.e., if there is a time allowance before the due time, the process proceeds to step S27. If it is determined in step S25 that the return traveling time is greater than or equal to the remaining time, i.e., if the user seems to be late for the return due time and date 45 unless he/she moves to the return place immediately, the process proceeds to step S26.”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawatari (US 20040193440 A1) (“Mawatari”) in view of Kamisawa (US 20150348179 A1) (“Kamisawa”) in view of Lothman (US 20220300878 A1) (“Lothman”) further in view of Zhu (CN 111785007 B) (“Zhu”) (Translation Attached).
With respect to claim 7, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman fail to explicitly disclose that the screening part is configured to set a center of the store-containing zone as the store representative point.
Zhu, however, teaches determination of a center area for a returning area of a vehicle (See at least Zhu Paragraph 99 “After obtaining the location information, the location information is compared with a plurality of pre-stored return areas one by one. If it is determined that the location is not in any of the plurality of return areas, it indicates that the return area where the location information is located has not been found in the pre-stored return areas. At this time, for each of the plurality of return areas, the distance between the center of the return area and the location information is determined,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman to include a determination of a center area for a returning area of a vehicle, as taught by Zhu as disclosed above, such that the screening part is configured to set a center of the store-containing zone as the store representative point, in order to ensure accurate vehicle return locations (Zhu Paragraph 4 “Therefore, the purpose of this application is to provide a vehicle return instruction method, device, and electronic device to instruct users to return vehicles properly at a lower cost, thereby saving costs and improving the user's vehicle return experience.”).
With respect to claim 8, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman fail to explicitly disclose that the screening part is configured to set a center of each of the mobile body-containing zones as the mobile-body representative point of a corresponding mobile body-containing zone of the mobile body-containing zones.
Zhu, however, teaches determination of a center area for a returning area of a vehicle (See at least Zhu Paragraph 99 “After obtaining the location information, the location information is compared with a plurality of pre-stored return areas one by one. If it is determined that the location is not in any of the plurality of return areas, it indicates that the return area where the location information is located has not been found in the pre-stored return areas. At this time, for each of the plurality of return areas, the distance between the center of the return area and the location information is determined,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman to include a determination of a center area for a returning area of a vehicle, as taught by Zhu as disclosed above, such that the screening part is configured to set a center of each of the mobile body-containing zones as the mobile-body representative point of a corresponding mobile body-containing zone of the mobile body-containing zones, in order to ensure accurate vehicle return locations (Zhu Paragraph 4 “Therefore, the purpose of this application is to provide a vehicle return instruction method, device, and electronic device to instruct users to return vehicles properly at a lower cost, thereby saving costs and improving the user's vehicle return experience.”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawatari (US 20040193440 A1) (“Mawatari”) in view of Kamisawa (US 20150348179 A1) (“Kamisawa”) in view of Lothman (US 20220300878 A1) (“Lothman”) further in view of Honda (US 20240010239 A1) (“Honda”).
With respect to claim 9, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman teach that for each of mobile body-containing zones being the mobile body-containing zone, acquire an estimated arrival time to a destination of a traveling route searched for the mobile body-containing zone by setting a current time as a departure time, the mobile-body representative point as a departure point, and the store representative point of the mobile body-containing zone as the destination (See at least Mawatari FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 29-34) (See at least Kamisawa FIGS. 7 and 12 and Paragraphs 145-147 | Paragraphs 162-164).
Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman, however, fail to explicitly disclose that the screening part is configured to set, among the at least one store in the store-containing zone, the store that is the most distant from the mobile body-containing zone or a mobile-body representative point set in the mobile body-containing zone as a store representative point used for the mobile body-containing zone.
Honda teaches to set a location for a vehicle to stop at as the farthest distance (See at least Honda FIGS. 5-6 and Paragraphs 80-94 “Next, with reference to FIG. 5 , another example of the operation flow of the parking management system 10 will be described. Note that, in the flow illustrated in FIG. 5 , the same step numbers are assigned to the same processes as those in the flow illustrated in FIG. 4 , and redundant descriptions thereof will be omitted. In the flowchart of FIG. 5 , after S2 of steps, in step S11, the processor 18 determines whether or not there are parked vehicles 200 in the parking lot 102 … In the step S12, the processor 18 determines whether or not the provision time Tn (that is, the time τn required to provide the product E) of the product E ordered by the driver DA of the vehicle 200A obtained in the latest step S2 is equal to or more than the provision time Tn-1 of the product E ordered by the driver DC of the vehicle 200C parked in the parking lot 102 … In this S13 of steps, the processor 18 determines, according to the guidance order OR of the parking frame, a parking frame B4 that is farther from the product provision location 114 than the parking frame B3 parked by the vehicle 200C (in other words, the guidance order OR is lower than the parking frame B3) as the parking location of the vehicle 200A. That is, when the provision time Tn of the vehicle 200A is equal to or greater than the provision time Tn-1 of the vehicle 200C (Tn≥Tn), the processor 18 determines the parking location of the vehicle 200A in the parking frame B4 farther from the product provision location 114 than the vehicle 200C. After the step S13, the processor 18 functions as the privilege granting unit 30 to execute the step S6 to generate the privilege data BD … Then, when the provision time Tn acquired by the provision time acquisition unit 26 is equal to or more than the second provision time Tn-1 (YES in step S12), the parking location determination unit 28 determines the parking frame B4 (second parking frame) farther from the product provision location 114 than the parking frame B3 (first parking frame) parked by the vehicle 200C as the parking location of the vehicle 200A (step S13) … According to this configuration, the parking frame to be parked by the vehicular 200A is determined from A8, B1 to B8 from the parking frame A1 in accordance with the length of the provision time Tn. The guidance information GI allows the vehicle 200A to be guided to the parking frame determined according to the length of the provision time Tn. As a result, occurrence of a traffic jam in the vehicle 200 in the parking lot 102 can be effectively suppressed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman to set a location for a vehicle to stop at as the farthest distance, as taught by Honda as disclosed above, such that the screening part is configured to set, among the at least one store in the store-containing zone, the store that is the most distant from the mobile body-containing zone or a mobile-body representative point set in the mobile body-containing zone as a store representative point used for the mobile body-containing zone, in order to ensure optimal vehicle location (Honda Paragraph 4 “There is a need for a technique to manage parking of the vehicles in the parking lot so as to suppress such congestion.”).
With respect to claim 10, Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman teach that the screening part is configured to set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones (See at least Mawatari FIG. 5 and Paragraphs 29-34) (See at least Kamisawa FIGS. 7 and 12 and Paragraphs 145-147 | Paragraphs 162-164)..
Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman, however, fail to explicitly disclose to set, among the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, the location of the mobile body that is most distant from the store-containing zone or the store representative point set in the store-containing zone as the mobile-body representative point of a corresponding mobile-body containing zone of the mobile body-containing zones.
Honda teaches to set a location for a vehicle to stop at as the farthest distance (See at least Honda FIGS. 5-6 and Paragraphs 80-94 “Next, with reference to FIG. 5 , another example of the operation flow of the parking management system 10 will be described. Note that, in the flow illustrated in FIG. 5 , the same step numbers are assigned to the same processes as those in the flow illustrated in FIG. 4 , and redundant descriptions thereof will be omitted. In the flowchart of FIG. 5 , after S2 of steps, in step S11, the processor 18 determines whether or not there are parked vehicles 200 in the parking lot 102 … In the step S12, the processor 18 determines whether or not the provision time Tn (that is, the time τn required to provide the product E) of the product E ordered by the driver DA of the vehicle 200A obtained in the latest step S2 is equal to or more than the provision time Tn-1 of the product E ordered by the driver DC of the vehicle 200C parked in the parking lot 102 … In this S13 of steps, the processor 18 determines, according to the guidance order OR of the parking frame, a parking frame B4 that is farther from the product provision location 114 than the parking frame B3 parked by the vehicle 200C (in other words, the guidance order OR is lower than the parking frame B3) as the parking location of the vehicle 200A. That is, when the provision time Tn of the vehicle 200A is equal to or greater than the provision time Tn-1 of the vehicle 200C (Tn≥Tn), the processor 18 determines the parking location of the vehicle 200A in the parking frame B4 farther from the product provision location 114 than the vehicle 200C. After the step S13, the processor 18 functions as the privilege granting unit 30 to execute the step S6 to generate the privilege data BD … Then, when the provision time Tn acquired by the provision time acquisition unit 26 is equal to or more than the second provision time Tn-1 (YES in step S12), the parking location determination unit 28 determines the parking frame B4 (second parking frame) farther from the product provision location 114 than the parking frame B3 (first parking frame) parked by the vehicle 200C as the parking location of the vehicle 200A (step S13) … According to this configuration, the parking frame to be parked by the vehicular 200A is determined from A8, B1 to B8 from the parking frame A1 in accordance with the length of the provision time Tn. The guidance information GI allows the vehicle 200A to be guided to the parking frame determined according to the length of the provision time Tn. As a result, occurrence of a traffic jam in the vehicle 200 in the parking lot 102 can be effectively suppressed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mawatari in view of Kamisawa in view of Lothman to set a location for a vehicle to stop at as the farthest distance, as taught by Honda as disclosed above, such that the screening part is configured to set, among the plurality of mobile bodies whose returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, the location of the mobile body that is most distant from the store-containing zone or the store representative point set in the store-containing zone as the mobile-body representative point of a corresponding mobile-body containing zone of the mobile body-containing zones, in order to ensure optimal vehicle location (Honda Paragraph 4 “There is a need for a technique to manage parking of the vehicles in the parking lot so as to suppress such congestion.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667