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 Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on May 21st, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 3-12 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections of claims 3-12 have been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The previous claim interpretation of claims 3-4 under 35 USC 112(f) has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendment.
The contingent limitations of claims 5-6 are maintained in view of the applicant’s amendments. With respect to claim 5, the center of the plurality of stores as the store representative point is set only in response to a determination that the store-containing zone contains a plurality of stores. The determination is not required in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. With respect to claim 6, a center of locations of the plurality of first mobile bodies as the mobile-body representative point of the mobile body-containing zone Is set in response to determining that the mobile body-containing zone contains the plurality of first mobile bodies. The determination is not required in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
The applicant states (Amend. 1-4) that amended claims 3-12 overcome the current 35 USC 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A (Prong 1) – The claims are directed to an abstract idea that comprises a mental process because the features of the claims can be practically performed in the mind:
The applicant states that the claimed features are not directed to an abstract idea that comprises a mental process because the features of the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts “these steps are tied to computer-implemented a mobile body management system and go beyond any process that could be performed in the human mind” (Amend. 4). However, it is important to note that for Step 2A prong 1, the analysis merely requires that the claim include, rather consist entirely of, a mental process. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any rationale, reasoning or evidence explaining why the particular claim language is too complex or time consuming to be performed in a particular time frame, and Applicant has not explicitly tied previous case law to the instant claim language. For example, the claim does not require that the processes of claim 3 be performed in any particular time frame.
Amended claim 8 recites “determining, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a first returning location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of first mobile bodies whose returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as first 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 plurality of first mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose the first returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, extract a second mobile body whose first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline is smaller than a predetermined level, and acquire a second an estimated arrival time of the second mobile body to a second destination of the second traveling route searched by setting a second current time as a second departure time, a location of the second mobile body as a departure point, and the store that is a second returning location of second mobile body as the second destination”. These limitations encompass determining data mobile body arrival times, with these limitations merely being pre-solution activity consisting of data gathering and do not encompass patent-eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent”. Furthermore, the limitation “management server configured to manage a location and a returning deadline of each of a plurality of first mobile bodies, the each of the plurality of first mobile bodies including a mobile body terminal configured to communicate with the management server set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones, the mobile-body representative point indicating a current location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies based on information acquired from the mobile body terminal of each the plurality of first mobile bodies; determine absence or presence of an arisen risk of returning delay of the second mobile body based on a second time margin between the acquired second estimated arrival time and a returning deadline of second mobile body” can practically be performed in the human mind and with a pen and paper.
Setting points for vehicle returns and determining if a delay will occur can be practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. The use of generic computer components (a center localization unit) to determine the center of the intersection does not make the claim limitation patent-eligible. See, MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(III) states “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same) … The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Step 2A (Prong 2) / Step 2B:
The applicant states (Amend. 3) that “amended claim 3 includes improvements to another technology or technical field”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 3 at most discusses an abstract idea to Setting points for vehicle returns and determining if a delay will occur. Even if, for the sake of the argument, the determination is a new idea, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible.”). Furthermore, when a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The applicants assert arguments for (1) an improvement to the functioning of a computer and (2) a more general improvement to an existing technological process. However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because applicant’s claim 1 fails to recite (1) any limitations detailing “low demand services”, how to efficiently “uninstall and then reinstall a service” or how management of services are allowed to be more efficient, and (2) any limitations detailing how “allowing the service requester to receive a desired quality of service” or how “not experiencing a delay or difference in quality of service even if the requested service had its processing priority lowered and needed to be reconfigured” is achieved. When a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (“Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”).
The applicant states that Mawatari fails to disclose the limitation of amended claim 3. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Mawatari (US 20040193440 A1) (“Mawatari”) in view of Kamisawa (US 20150348179 A1) (“Kamisawa”) in view of Lothman (US 20220300878 A1) (“Lothman”) teaches the amended limitations. Such an assertion amounts to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent claim 1 and nakedly asserting that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support is afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984; Accord M.P.E.P. 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.").
Contingent Limitations
Claims 5-6 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 5: “the management server is configured to, in response to determining that the store-containing zone contains a plurality of stores, set a center of the plurality of stores as the store representative point”
Claim 6: “for each of mobile body-containing zones being the mobile body-containing zone, the management server is configured to, in response to determining that the mobile body-containing zone contains the plurality of first mobile bodies, set a center of locations of the plurality of first mobile bodies as the mobile-body representative point of 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 first mobile bodies, the each of the plurality of first mobile bodies including a mobile body terminal configured to communicate with the management server,, and set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones, the mobile-body representative point indicating a current location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies based on information acquired from the mobile body terminal of each the plurality of first mobile bodies, determine absence or presence of an arisen risk of returning delay of the second mobile body based on a second time margin between the acquired second estimated arrival time and a returning deadline of the second mobile body”, 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 “determine, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a first returning location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of first mobile bodies whose the first returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, acquire a first estimated arrival time to a first destination of a first traveling route searched by setting a first current time as a first departure time, setting the mobile-body representative point as a first departure point, and setting the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the first destination, from the plurality of first mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose the first returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, extract a second mobile body whose first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of each of a plurality of first mobile bodies is smaller than a predetermined level, acquire a second estimated arrival time of the second mobile body to a second destination of a second traveling route searched by setting a second current time as a second departure time, a location of the second mobile body as a second departure point, and the store that is a second returning location of the second mobile body as the second 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, the each of the plurality of first mobile bodies including a mobile body terminal configured to communicate with the management server (See at least Mawatari Paragraphs 6-7 “Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a rent-a-car management program and a rent-a-car management apparatus for informing a user that a return due time and date for a rental car is approaching. In order to achieve the above object, the present invention provides a rent-a-car management apparatus including a storage unit for storing rent-a-car identification information and return due-time-and-date information in association with each other. Information concerning a current position of a car which matches the rent-a-car identification information of a rent-a-car record read from the storage unit is obtained. Based on the information concerning the current position and information concerning a predetermined rent-a-car return place, a return traveling time required for the car to move to the predetermined rent-a-car return place is calculated. If the return traveling time is greater than or equal to the remaining time before the car is to be returned, return time limit information is sent to the rent-a-car terminal to inform the user that the return due time is approaching.”), and
acquire a first estimated arrival time to a first destination of a first traveling route searched by setting a first current time as a first departure time, setting the mobile-body representative point as a first departure point, and setting the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the first destination, from the plurality of first mobile bodies which are in the mobile body-containing zones and whose the first returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, and determine absence or presence of an arisen risk of returning delay of the second mobile body based on a second time margin between the acquired second estimated arrival time and a returning deadline of the second mobile body (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 determine, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a first returning location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of first mobile bodies whose the first returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones, the mobile-body representative point indicating a current location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies based on information acquired from the mobile body terminal of each the plurality of first mobile bodies, extract a second mobile body whose first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of each of a plurality of first mobile bodies is smaller than a predetermined level, acquire a second estimated arrival time of the second mobile body to a second destination of a second traveling route searched by setting a second current time as a second departure time, a location of the second mobile body as a second departure point, and the store that is a second returning location of the second mobile body as the second destination.
Kamisawa teaches determine, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a first returning location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of first mobile bodies whose the first returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as 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).”),
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 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
the mobile-body representative point indicating a current location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies based on information acquired from the mobile body terminal of each the plurality of first mobile bodies (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 determine, among zones predetermined by dividing a target geographical range, a zone in which at least one store that is a first returning location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies is located as a store-containing zone, and zones in which the plurality of first mobile bodies whose the first returning location is the store in the store-containing zone are located as mobile body-containing zones, set a store representative point in the store-containing zone, set a mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones, the mobile-body representative point indicating a current location of each of the plurality of first mobile bodies based on information acquired from the mobile body terminal of each the plurality of first mobile bodies, 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 a second mobile body whose first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of each of a plurality of first mobile bodies is smaller than a predetermined level, acquire a second estimated arrival time of the second mobile body to a second destination of a second traveling route searched by setting a second current time as a second departure time, a location of the second mobile body as a second departure point, and the store that is a second returning location of the second mobile body as the second destination.
Lothman teaches to extract a second mobile body whose first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of each of a plurality of first mobile bodies is smaller than a predetermined level, acquire a second estimated arrival time of the second mobile body to a second destination of a second traveling route searched by setting a second current time as a second departure time, a location of the second mobile body as a second departure point, and the store that is a second returning location of the second mobile body as the second destination (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 a second mobile body whose first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of each of a plurality of first mobile bodies is smaller than a predetermined level, acquire a second estimated arrival time of the second mobile body to a second destination of a second traveling route searched by setting a second current time as a second departure time, a location of the second mobile body as a second departure point, and the store that is a second returning location of the second mobile body as the second destination, 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 the management server is configured to cause the mobile body terminal of the second mobile body, which is determined as having the arisen risk of returning delay, to alert and warn a user of the second mobile body 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 management server is configured to acquire the first estimated arrival time to the first destination of the first traveling route searched by setting the first current time as the first departure time, the mobile-body representative point as the first departure point, and the store representative point of the store-containing zone as the first destination using a service that searches a route and a third estimated arrival time of the searched route, which is provided by an external service server, and acquire the second estimated arrival time to the second destination of the second traveling route searched by setting the second current time as the second departure time, the location of the second mobile body as the second departure point, and a store that is the second returning location of the second mobile body as the second 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 management server is configured to among the zones predetermined by dividing the geographical range, determine zones in which the at least one store that is the first returning location of one or more corresponding mobile bodies of the plurality of first mobile bodies is located as store-containing zones, and zones in which the plurality of first mobile bodies whose the first 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 the first estimated arrival time to the first destination of the first traveling route searched by setting the store representative point in the corresponding store-containing zone, setting the mobile-body representative point in each of the mobile body-containing zones of the corresponding store-containing zone, setting the first current time as the first departure time, setting the mobile-body representative point as the first departure point, and setting the store representative point of the corresponding store-containing zone as the first destination, and extract, from the plurality of first mobile bodies which are located in said each of the mobile body-containing zones and whose the first returning locations are the at least one store in the corresponding store-containing zone, the second mobile body whose the first time margin between the acquired first estimated arrival time and the returning deadline of each of the plurality of first 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 management server 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 management server 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 management server 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 management server 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 the first estimated arrival time to the first destination of the first traveling route searched for the mobile body-containing zone by setting the first current time as the first departure time, the mobile-body representative point as the first departure point, and the store representative point of the mobile body-containing zone as the first 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 management server 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 the mobile-body representative point set in the mobile body-containing zone as the 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 management server 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 the mobile-body representative point set in the mobile body-containing zone as the 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 management server is configured to set the 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 first mobile bodies whose the first returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, a location of the first 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 set, among the plurality of first mobile bodies whose the first returning locations are the at least one store in the store-containing zone, a location of the first 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights