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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 02/20/2026.
Claims 1-3, 12, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 02/20/2026 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to §112 (b) Rejection Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 11-13 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to the claims, the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-24 have been withdrawn herein. However, claim 16 remains rejected under 112(b) because the amendments fail to address each and every issue that renders the claim indefinite.
Response to §101 Rejection Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 11-13 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the configuration of additional elements of the claims provide an improvement in the technological field of automated facility logistics and equipment transport systems. In particular, the Applicant argues the “improvement lies in the integration of reservation management, equipment identification, and automated transport control into a single coordinated system that ensures that the correct object is transported to the correct space at the correct time without manual intervention” (see pg. 12), “the stated object of the invention is to enhance user convenience by automatically transporting equipment to the reserved space” (see pg.12), “the system improves timing coordination and reduces manual labor, as expressly described in the specification discussion of reduced labor costs and improved allocation efficiency” (see pp.12-13), “the resulting system improves the operation of automated warehouse and room-allocation technologies by synchronizing reservation data with automated transport execution, thereby improving reliability, timing precision, and resource allocation” (see pg. 13).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the independent claims recite additional elements that, when considered as a whole/ordered combination, reflect an improvement to a technological field or functioning of a computer. Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards receiving/storing reservation information from a user for an on-demand rental facility, receiving a transportation reservation for an object related to the user of the on-demand facility, receiving identification information for identifying the object stored in a storage location based on the transportation reservation, and facilitating the delivery/transport to the object to the on-demand rental facility at the reservation date and time. These claim features, as a whole, recite concepts of coordinating and facilitating business relations between a user (i.e., a renter of an on-demand rental facility) and an on-demand rental facility management entity.
The additional elements of the claim include various “means” and “units” recited as generic computer tools that are being utilized in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea. For example, the additional elements include a “facility reservation receiving unit for storing facility reservation information”, “receiving a reservation…via the user input means”, “a transportation receiving unit for receiving a transportation reservation”, and “an item identification information acquisition unit for acquiring item identification information”. “Storing”, “receiving”, and “acquiring” information are ordinary computer functions that do not reflect an improvement to technology. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Furthermore, the “transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object”, as currently drafted, merely serve as a generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. The Examiner further notes that “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include […] Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer […] Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception […] Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
Furthermore, the Examiner disagrees that “enhanc[ing] user convenience by automatically transporting equipment to the reserved space” (see pg.12 of Response), “improving reliability, timing precision, and resource allocation” (see pg. 13 of Response), “ensur[ing] that the correct object is transported to the correct space at the correct time without manual intervention” (see pg. 12 of Response), and “reduced labor costs and improved allocation efficiency” (see pp.12-13 of Response) are improvements in technology. Benefits such as enhancing user convenience, reducing labor costs, ensuring correct objects are transported, and improving reliability/timing precision/resource allocation are considered to be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Response to Prior Art Rejection Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-11 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-4 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 of the Response, the Applicant argues “claim 1 requires a storage location for storing an item delivered by a delivery agent […] Ishida does not disclose or suggest a configuration in which a delivery agent delivers an item to a storage location for subsequent transport in connection with a user reservation”.
Firstly, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite any steps for a delivery agent to deliver an item to a storage location- only that an object is transported from a storage location to an on-demand rental facility by a transportation means (i.e., “a transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object from the storage location to the on-demand rental facility at the reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility on the basis of the facility reservation information…”) . Furthermore, as previously presented, Ishida teaches a system wherein a user accesses a reservation site using the terminal device, searches for a room, specifies the usage time, and executes the reservation (¶ [015]). Moreover, Ishida teaches that when the reservation from the user includes a request for use of equipment, a management control unit reads the equipment information related to the equipment from an equipment storage unit, and makes a reservation by associating the equipment information with the reservation information (¶ [019]). Furthermore, Ishida teaches at a predetermined time before the reserved time, a management control unit issues a transport command to a transport means to transport equipment from a warehouse to the reserved room based on the reservation information (¶ [025]). These teachings clearly teach the independent claim limitations directed towards “a transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object from the storage location to the on-demand rental facility at the reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility on the basis of the facility reservation information…”.
On page 14 of the Response, the Applicant argues “claim 1 requires a transportation receiving unit for receiving a transportation reservation for an object via the user input means…Ishida does not disclose receiving a transportation reservation…Thus, Ishida lacks a transportation receiving unit as claimed”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Ishida does not teach these features. As discussed above, Ishida teaches that when the reservation from the user includes a request for use of equipment, a management control unit reads the equipment information related to the equipment from an equipment storage unit, and makes a reservation by associating the equipment information with the reservation information (¶ [019]). Moreover, at a predetermined time before the reserved time, a management control unit issues a transport command to a transport means to transport equipment from a warehouse to the reserved room based on the reservation information (¶ [025]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the user’s request for use of equipment in their reservation initiates the automated service of having the equipment transported to the reserved room by a transportation means at a predetermined time before the reservation. Thus, within the context of the system of Ishida, the request for use of equipment at a reserved time entails the delivery of the equipment to the reserved room – equivalent to receiving a transportation reservation of the equipment.
On page 14 of the Response, the Applicant argues “claim 1 recites an item identification information acquisition unit that acquires item identification information for identifying the object stored in the storage location when the transportation reservation is received…In Ishida, equipment IDs are pre-stored in an equipment storage unit and associated with users in advance. There is no disclosure of acquiring item identification information in response to receiving a transportation reservation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Ishida does not teach these claim features. Ishida discloses when the reservation from the user includes a request for use of equipment, the management control unit reads the equipment information related to the equipment from the equipment storage unit, and makes a reservation by associating the equipment information with the reservation information (¶ [019]). Moreover, at a predetermined time before the reserved time, a management control unit issues a transport command to a transport means to transport equipment from a warehouse to the reserved room based on the reservation information (¶ [025]). As discussed further above, the request for use of equipment at a reserved time entails the delivery of the equipment to the reserved room – equivalent to receiving a transportation reservation of the equipment. Thus, these teachings of Ishida are equivalent to acquiring item identification information in response to receiving a transportation reservation.
On pages 14-15 of the Response, the Applicant argues “claim 1 requires that the transportation control unit cause transportation of the object from the storage location to the on-demand facility at the reservation date and time on the basis of both the facility reservation information and the acquired item identification information….Because Ishida does not disclose a transportation reservation nor acquisition of item identification information upon such receipt, it cannot disclose transporting an object based on those claimed elements”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Ishida does not disclose these claim features. As discussed above, with regard to Ishida, the request for use of equipment at a reserved time entails the delivery of the equipment to the reserved room – equivalent to receiving a transportation reservation of the equipment. Thus, in view of the disclosure of Ishida at ¶ [019] and ¶ [025], as discussed in further detail above, Ishida is considered to teach these claim limitations.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the three prong test to determine if 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) can be invoked was applied.
Claim 1 recites the limitations (1.) “a user input means that is connected to the management server via a communication line and receives information input by the user”, (2.) “a storage unit for storing information”, (3.) “a facility reservation receiving unit for storing facility reservation information”, (4.) “a transportation receiving unit for receiving transportation of an object”, (5.) “an item identification information acquisition unit for acquiring item identification information”, and (6.) “a transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “user input means” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “user input means” is subsequently modified by the functional language “receives information input by the user”. The limitation “a user input means that… receives information input by the user” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0087] of the Specification as “a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like”.
The term “storage unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “storage unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for storing information”. The limitation “a storage unit for storing information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00101] of the Specification as “a memory or a hard disk drive (HDD) for storing information”.
The term “facility reservation receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “facility reservation receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for storing facility reservation information”. The limitation “a facility reservation receiving unit for storing facility reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] a facility reservation receiving unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]).
The term “transportation receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “transportation receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “receiving transportation of an object”. The limitation “a transportation receiving unit for receiving transportation of an object” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] an item transportation control system”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]) and “the item transportation control system 32 includes a transportation receiving unit” (¶ [0107]).
The term “item identification information acquisition unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “item identification information acquisition unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for acquiring item identification information”. The limitation “an item identification information acquisition unit for acquiring item identification information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] an item transportation control system”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]) and “the item transportation control system 32 includes […] an item identification information acquisition unit” (¶ [0107]).
The term “transportation control unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “transportation control unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for causing the transportation means to transport the object”. The limitation “a transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] an item transportation control system”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]) and “the item transportation control system 32 includes […] a transportation control unit” (¶ [0107]). The corresponding algorithm is recited at ¶ [0233] in the Specification as “the transportation control unit 323 creates a transportation schedule for causing the transportation robot 6 to transport the object from the lockers 510 and 520 to the room 20 at the reservation date and time of the room 20 on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit 30 and the item identification information (accommodation reservation information) acquired by the item identification information acquisition unit 322, stores the transportation schedule in the storage unit 30, and transmits the transportation schedule to the transportation robot 6. Here, the transportation control unit 323 creates the transportation schedule so that the transport robot 6 transports the object from the lockers 510 and 520 to the room 20 a little before (in the present embodiment, 10 minutes before) the usage start time of the room 20”.
Claim 2 recites the limitations (1.) “a building unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a building unlocking key”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “building unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “building unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing a building unlocking key”. The limitation “a building unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a building unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0009] as “the management server includes a building unlocking key issuing unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]). The corresponding algorithm is recited at ¶ [00141] as “the building unlocking key issuing unit 351 […] issue the building unlocking key […] and transmit the building unlocking key […] to the user input means”, wherein “the unlocking key, for example, a personal identification number, an optical code such as a bar code and a QR code (registered trademark), or the like can be employed” (see ¶ [00144]).
Claim 3 recites the limitations (1.) “a facility unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a facility unlocking key”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “facility unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “facility unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing a facility unlocking key”. The limitation “a facility unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a facility unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0011] as “the management server includes a facility unlocking key issuing unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]). The corresponding algorithm is recited at ¶ [00141] as “the facility unlocking key issuing unit 352 issue the […] facility unlocking key. and transmit the […] facility unlocking key to the user input means”, wherein “the unlocking key, for example, a personal identification number, an optical code such as a bar code and a QR code (registered trademark), or the like can be employed” (see ¶ [00144]).
Claim 4 recites the limitations (1.) “an accommodation unit as a plurality of the storage locations for accommodating items”, (2.) “the item identification information acquisition unit acquires information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “accommodation unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for accommodating items”. The limitation “an accommodation unit […] for accommodating items” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0093] of the Specification as “the first accommodation means 51 and the second accommodation means 52 have a plurality of lockers 510 and 520 as a plurality of accommodation units for accommodating the item”.
The term “item identification information acquisition unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “item identification information acquisition unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “acquires information”. The limitation “the item identification information acquisition unit acquires information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] an item transportation control system”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]) and “the item transportation control system 32 includes […] an item identification information acquisition unit” (¶ [0107]).
Claim 5 recites the limitations (1.) “an accommodation reservation receiving unit for storing accommodation reservation information”, and (2.) “the item identification information acquisition unit acquires the accommodation reservation information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “accommodation reservation receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation reservation receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for storing accommodation reservation information”. The limitation “an accommodation reservation receiving unit for storing accommodation reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0015] as “the management server includes an accommodation reservation receiving unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]).
The term “item identification information acquisition unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “item identification information acquisition unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “acquires information”. The limitation “the item identification information acquisition unit acquires information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] an item transportation control system”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]) and “the item transportation control system 32 includes […] an item identification information acquisition unit” (¶ [0107]).
Claim 6 recites the limitations (1.) “an accommodation reservation information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “accommodation reservation information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation reservation information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. The limitation “an accommodation reservation information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0018] as “the management server preferably includes an accommodation reservation information notifying unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]). There is insufficient disclosure in the claim and specification of an algorithm corresponding to the claimed “notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information” function.
Claim 7 recites the limitations (1.) “a display unit for displaying information”, and (2.) “an availability display unit for displaying availability of the accommodation unit on the display unit”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “display unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “a display unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for displaying availability of the accommodation unit on the display unit”. The limitation “a display unit for displaying information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0020] as “the user input means includes a display unit for displaying information”, wherein “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
The term “availability display unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “availability display unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for displaying information”. The limitation “an availability display unit for displaying availability of the accommodation unit on the display unit” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0021] as “the availability display unit displays the availability of the accommodation unit on the display unit of the user input means on the basis of the accommodation reservation information stored in the storage unit, so that the user can reserve the accommodation unit with reference to the availability of the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means”, wherein “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
Claim 8 recites the limitations (1.) “a storage unit stores attribute information”, (2.) “an accommodation unit information display unit for displaying the attribute”, and (3.) “an accommodation unit selection unit for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “a storage unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “storage unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “stores the attribute information”. The limitation “a storage unit stores the attribute information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00101] of the Specification as “a memory or a hard disk drive (HDD) for storing information”.
The term “accommodation unit information display unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unit information display unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for displaying the attribute”. The limitation “an accommodation unit information display unit for displaying the attribute” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0023] as “the accommodation unit information display unit displays the attribute of the accommodation unit on the display unit of the user input means on the basis of the attribute information stored in the storage unit”, wherein “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
The term “accommodation unit selection unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unit selection unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means”. The limitation “an accommodation unit selection unit for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0023] as “ the accommodation unit selection unit allows the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means, so that the user can select and reserve the accommodation unit having the attribute desired to be used with reference to the attribute of a plurality of the accommodation units displayed on the display unit of the user input means”, wherein “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
Claim 9 recites the limitations (1.) “a storage unit stores attribute information”, (2.) “an attribute information display unit for displaying the attribute”, and (3.) “an attribute selection unit for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the attribute”, and (4.) “an accommodation unit determination unit for determining the accommodation unit”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “a storage unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “storage unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “stores the attribute information”. The limitation “a storage unit stores attribute information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00101] of the Specification as “a memory or a hard disk drive (HDD) for storing information”.
The term “attribute information display unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “attribute information display unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for displaying the attribute”. The limitation “an attribute information display unit for displaying the attribute” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0025] of the Specification as “the management server includes: an attribute information display unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]), “the attribute information display unit displays the attribute of the accommodation unit on the display unit of the user input means on the basis of the attribute information stored in the storage unit” (¶ [0026]), and “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
The term “attribute selection unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “attribute selection unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the attribute”. The limitation “an attribute selection unit for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the attribute” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0025] of the Specification as “the management server includes: […] an attribute selection unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]), “the attribute selection unit allows the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the attribute of the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means” (¶ [0026]), and “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
The term “accommodation unit determination unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unit determination unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for determining the accommodation unit”. The limitation “an accommodation unit determination unit for determining the accommodation unit” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0025] of the Specification as “the management server includes: […] an accommodation unit determination unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]), “the user can cause the accommodation unit determination unit to automatically determine and reserve the accommodation unit having a desired attribute by selecting the attribute of the accommodation unit desired to be used with reference to the attributes of the plurality of accommodation units displayed on the display unit of the user input means” (¶ [0026]), and “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
Claim 10 recites the limitations (1.) “the accommodation reservation receiving unit receives the reservation”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “accommodation reservation receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation reservation receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “receives the reservation”. The limitation “the accommodation reservation receiving unit receives the reservation” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0015] as “the management server includes an accommodation reservation receiving unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]).
Claim 11 recites the limitations (1.) “the transportation control unit causes the transportation means to transport the object”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “transportation control unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “transportation control unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “causes the transportation means to transport the object”. The limitation “the transportation control unit causes the transportation means to transport the object” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00100] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] an item transportation control system”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]) and “the item transportation control system 32 includes […] a transportation control unit” (¶ [0107]). The corresponding algorithm is recited at ¶ [0233] in the Specification as “the transportation control unit 323 creates a transportation schedule for causing the transportation robot 6 to transport the object from the lockers 510 and 520 to the room 20 at the reservation date and time of the room 20 on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit 30 and the item identification information (accommodation reservation information) acquired by the item identification information acquisition unit 322, stores the transportation schedule in the storage unit 30, and transmits the transportation schedule to the transportation robot 6. Here, the transportation control unit 323 creates the transportation schedule so that the transport robot 6 transports the object from the lockers 510 and 520 to the room 20 a little before (in the present embodiment, 10 minutes before) the usage start time of the room 20”.
Claim 12 recites the limitations (1.) “a delivery receiving unit for receiving delivery of the object to the accommodation unit”, (2.) “an accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key”, (3.) “a delivery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “delivery receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for receiving delivery of the object to the accommodation unit”. The limitation “a delivery receiving unit for receiving delivery of the object to the accommodation unit” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes: a delivery receiving unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the delivery receiving unit receives collection information on collection of the object” (see ¶ [0033]).
The term “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing an accommodation unlocking key”. The limitation “an accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes […] accommodation unlocking key issuing unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the personal identification number, the optical code such as the bar code and the QR code (registered trademark), or the like is employed as the unlocking key” (see ¶ [0145]).
The term “delivery information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. The limitation “a delivery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0018] as “the management server includes […] a delivery information notifying unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the accommodation reservation information, the agent unlocking key, and the collection information are transmitted to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (¶ see [0249]).
Claim 13 recites the limitations (1.) “the delivery receiving unit receives collection information”, and (2.) “the delivery information notifying unit notifies the delivery agent of the collection information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “delivery receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “receives collection information”. The limitation “the delivery receiving unit receives collection information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes: a delivery receiving unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the delivery receiving unit receives collection information on collection of the object” (see ¶ [0033]).
The term “delivery information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “notifies the delivery agent of the collection information”. The limitation “the delivery information notifying unit notifies the delivery agent of the collection information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0018] as “the management server includes […] a delivery information notifying unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), “the delivery information notifying unit 342 transmits the collection information stored in the storage section 30 to the delivery agent” (see ¶ [0248]), and “the accommodation reservation information, the agent unlocking key, and the collection information are transmitted to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (¶ see [0249]).
Claim 14 recites the limitations (1.) “a recovery receiving unit for receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit”, (2.) “an accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key”, (3.) “a recovery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “recovery receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “recovery receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit”. The limitation “a recovery receiving unit for receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0035] as “the management server includes: a recovery receiving unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the recovery receiving unit receives shipping information on shipping of the object” (see ¶ [0037]).
The term “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing an accommodation unlocking key”. The limitation “an accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes […] accommodation unlocking key issuing unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the personal identification number, the optical code such as the bar code and the QR code (registered trademark), or the like is employed as the unlocking key” (see ¶ [0145]).
The term “recovery information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “recovery information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. The limitation “a recovery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0035] as “the management server includes […] a recovery information notifying unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the accommodation reservation information, the agent unlocking key, and the collection information are transmitted to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (¶ see [0249]).
Claim 15 recites the limitations (1.) “the recovery receiving unit receives shipping information on shipping of the object”, and (2.) “the recovery information notifying unit notifies the delivery agent of the shipping information”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “recovery receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “recovery receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “receives shipping information”. The limitation “a recovery receiving unit receives information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0035] as “the management server includes: a recovery receiving unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the recovery receiving unit receives shipping information on shipping of the object” (see ¶ [0037]).
The term “recovery information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “recovery information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “notifies the delivery agent of the shipping information”. The limitation “the recovery information notifying unit notifies the delivery agent of the shipping information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0035] as “the management server includes […] a recovery information notifying unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the accommodation reservation information, the agent unlocking key, and the shipping information are transmitted to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (¶ [00259]).
Claim 16 recites the limitations (1.) “a delivery receiving unit for receiving delivery of the object to the accommodation unit”, (2.) “an accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key for unlocking the locking device”, (3.) “a delivery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”, (4.) “a recovery receiving unit for receiving recovery of the object”, (5.) “a recovery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”, (6.) “a rental information acquisition unit for acquiring rental information on a rental item”, (7.) “a rental information display unit for displaying the renal item”, and (8.) “a rental item selection unit for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the rental item displayed on the display unit”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “delivery receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for receiving delivery of the object to the accommodation unit”. The limitation “a delivery receiving unit for receiving delivery of the object to the accommodation unit” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes: a delivery receiving unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the delivery receiving unit receives collection information on collection of the object” (see ¶ [0033]).
The term “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing an accommodation unlocking key”. The limitation “an accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes […] accommodation unlocking key issuing unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the personal identification number, the optical code such as the bar code and the QR code (registered trademark), or the like is employed as the unlocking key” (see ¶ [0145]).
The term “delivery information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. The limitation “a delivery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0018] as “the management server includes […] a delivery information notifying unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the accommodation reservation information, the agent unlocking key, and the collection information are transmitted to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (¶ see [0249]).
The term “recovery receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “recovery receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit”. The limitation “a recovery receiving unit for receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0035] as “the management server includes: a recovery receiving unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the recovery receiving unit receives shipping information on shipping of the object” (see ¶ [0037]).
The term “recovery information notifying unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “recovery information notifying unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information”. The limitation “a recovery information notifying unit for notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0035] as “the management server includes […] a recovery information notifying unit”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the accommodation reservation information, the agent unlocking key, and the collection information are transmitted to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (¶ see [0249]).
The term “rental information acquisition unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “rental information acquisition unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for acquiring rental information on a rental item”. The limitation “a rental information acquisition unit for acquiring rental information on a rental item” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0039] as “the management server includes […] a rental information acquisition unit”, and “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]).
The term “rental information display unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “rental information display unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for displaying the renal item”. The limitation “a rental information display unit for displaying the renal item” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0039] as “the management server includes […] a rental information display unit for displaying the rental item […] on a display unit of the user input means”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
The term “rental item selection unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “rental item selection unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the rental item displayed on the display unit”. The limitation “a rental item selection unit for allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the rental item displayed on the display unit”” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0039] as “the management server includes […] a rental item selection unit for allowing the user […] to select the rental item displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
Claim 17 recites the limitations (1.) “a transportation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing, to the transportation means, a transportation unlocking key”, and (2.) “an agent unlocking key issuing unit for issuing, to the delivery agent, an agent unlocking key for unlocking the locking device”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “transportation unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “transportation unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing, to the transportation means, a transportation unlocking key”. The limitation “a transportation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing, to the transportation means, a transportation unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes […] accommodation unlocking key issuing unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), “the accommodation unlocking key issuing unit includes: a transportation unlocking key issuing unit” (see ¶ [0042]), “the transportation unlocking key issuing unit 355 transmits the transportation unlocking key to the transportation robot 6 via the Internet 7” (see ¶ [00282]), and “the personal identification number, the optical code such as the bar code and the QR code (registered trademark), or the like is employed as the unlocking key” (see ¶ [0145]).
The term “agent unlocking key issuing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “agent unlocking key issuing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for issuing, to the delivery agent, an agent unlocking key for unlocking the locking device”. The limitation “an agent unlocking key issuing unit for issuing, to the delivery agent, an agent unlocking key for unlocking the locking device” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0031] as “the management server includes […] accommodation unlocking key issuing unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), “the accommodation unlocking key issuing unit includes: […] an agent unlocking key issuing unit” (see ¶ [0042]), “the agent unlocking key issuing unit 356 issues the agent unlocking key and transmits the agent unlocking key to the delivery agent via the Internet 7” (see ¶ [00151]), and “the personal identification number, the optical code such as the bar code and the QR code (registered trademark), or the like is employed as the unlocking key” (see ¶ [0145]).
Claim 18 recites the limitations (1.) “an agent unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the agent unlocking key”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “agent unlocking key setting unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “agent unlocking key setting unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for enabling or disabling the agent unlocking key”. The limitation “an agent unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the agent unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0044] as “the management server preferably includes an agent unlocking key setting unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “it is preferred that the agent unlocking key setting unit determines a specific time period to enable the agent unlocking key on the basis of the accommodation reservation information stored in the storage unit, enables the agent unlocking key at a start of the specific time period, and disables the agent unlocking key at an end of the specific time period” (¶ [0046]).
Claim 19 recites the limitations (1.) “the agent unlocking key setting unit determines a specific time period to enable the agent unlocking key”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “agent unlocking key setting unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “agent unlocking key setting unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “determines a specific time period to enable the agent unlocking key”. The limitation “the agent unlocking key setting unit determines a specific time period to enable the agent unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0044] as “the management server preferably includes an agent unlocking key setting unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “it is preferred that the agent unlocking key setting unit determines a specific time period to enable the agent unlocking key on the basis of the accommodation reservation information stored in the storage unit, enables the agent unlocking key at a start of the specific time period, and disables the agent unlocking key at an end of the specific time period” (¶ [0046]).
Claim 20 recites the limitations (1.) “the agent unlocking key setting unit disables the agent unlocking key after the agent unlocking key is used”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “agent unlocking key setting unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “agent unlocking key setting unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “disables the agent unlocking key after the agent unlocking key is used”. The limitation “the agent unlocking key setting unit disables the agent unlocking key after the agent unlocking key is used” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0044] as “the management server preferably includes an agent unlocking key setting unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), “the agent unlocking key setting unit enables or disables the agent unlocking key on the basis of the predetermined condition” (see ¶ [0045]), and “the agent unlocking key setting unit disables the agent unlocking key after the agent unlocking key is used, so that a validity period of the agent unlocking key can be shortened compared to, for example, a case of disabling the agent unlocking key at the end of the specific time period” (see ¶ [0049]).
Claim 21 recites the limitations (1.) “a transportation unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key”, and (2.) “the transportation unlocking key setting unit enables the transportation unlocking key after disabling the agent unlocking key”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “transportation unlocking key setting unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “transportation unlocking key setting unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key”. The limitation “a transportation unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0050] as “the management server includes a transportation unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key on the basis of a predetermined condition”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]).
The term “transportation unlocking key setting unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “transportation unlocking key setting unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “enables the transportation unlocking key after disabling the agent unlocking key”. The limitation “a transportation unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0050] as “the management server includes a transportation unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key on the basis of a predetermined condition, and the transportation unlocking key setting unit enables the transportation unlocking key after disabling the agent unlocking key”, wherein “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]).
Claim 22 recites the limitations (1.) “a changing unit for changing at least one of a usage fee […] and a usage period”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “changing unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “changing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for changing at least one of a usage fee […] and a usage period”. The limitation “a changing unit for changing at least one of a usage fee […] and a usage period” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0050] as “the management server preferably includes a changing unit for changing at least one of a usage fee […] and a usage period of the accommodation nuit on the basis of a predetermined condition”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the changing unit 361 employs a condition related to a period such as off-season and busy season as the predetermined condition” (see ¶ [00168]).
Claim 23 recites the limitations (1.) “the storage unit stores location information on placement locations of the first accommodation means and the second accommodation means”, and (2.) “a location information display unit for displaying the placement locations of the first accommodation means”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “storage unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “changing unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “stores location information on placement locations of the first accommodation means and the second accommodation means”. The limitation “the storage unit stores location information on placement locations of the first accommodation means and the second accommodation means” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [00101] of the Specification as “a memory or a hard disk drive (HDD) for storing information”.
The term “location information display unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “location information display unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for displaying the placement locations of the first accommodation means”. The limitation “a location information display unit for displaying the placement locations of the first accommodation means” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0054] of the Specification as “the management server includes a location information display unit for displaying the placement locations […] on a display unit of the user input means on a basis of the location information stored in the storage unit”, “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]), and “the user input means 4 is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, or the like […] the touch panel 41 function as a display unit for displaying the information” (see ¶ [0087]).
Claim 24 recites the limitations (1.) “a sum calculation unit for calculating a sum of a usage fee”, and (2.) “a settlement receiving unit for receiving settlement for the sum of usage fees”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by functional language. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “sum calculation unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “sum calculation unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for calculating a sum of a usage fee”. The limitation “a sum calculation unit for calculating a sum of a usage fee” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0056] of the Specification as “the management server includes: a sum calculation unit”, and “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]).
The term “settlement receiving unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “settlement receiving unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for receiving settlement for the sum of usage fees”. The limitation “a settlement receiving unit for receiving settlement for the sum of usage fees” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited in ¶ [0056] of the Specification as “the management server includes […] a settlement receiving unit”, and “[t]he management server 3 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, and the like” (see ¶ [0099]).
Therefore, the limitations discussed above are considered to have invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and should be treated accordingly. Furthermore, no other terms in claims exist that would impart structure to the aforementioned generic placeholder terms to remove these limitations from 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “a recovery receiving unit for receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit”. As currently drafted, it is unclear whether the “recovery receiving unit” is receiving a physical object or if they are receiving information corresponding to the object in the accommodation unit. Accordingly, claim 16 is rendered indefinite for failing to particularly point out or distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, the “recovery receiving unit” will be interpreted as receiving information associated with the object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-24 are directed to a machine (“an on-demand rental facility management system”). Thus, claims 1-24 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-24, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] usage time is set and facility is rented to a user;
[…] managing the on-demand rental facility;
storing facility reservation information on the user and reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility […] by receiving a reservation for the on-demand rental facility […];
[…] receiving a transportation reservation for an object, which is an item related to the user of the on-demand rental facility […];
acquiring item identification information for identifying the object stored in the storage location when the transportation reservation for the object is received […];
causing the transportation means to transport the object from the storage location to the on-demand rental facility at the reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility on the basis of the facility reservation information […] and the item identification information acquired […].
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-24, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of planning and facilitating business relations (i.e., renting a facility to a user, setting a usage time, managing the on-demand rental facility, collecting facility reservation information corresponding to an on-demand rental facility, receiving transportation reservation information, and causing the transportation of an object to the on-demand rental facility according to a reservation date and time), which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0002]-¶ [0003] and ¶ [0056].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “management server”, “user input means that is connected to the management server via a communication line an receives information input by the user”, “storage unit for storing information”, “facility reservation receiving unit”, steps for “receiving a reservation for the on-demand rental facility via the user input means”, “transportation receiving unit for receiving a transportation reservation […] via the user input means”, “item identification information acquisition unit”, and “transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object…”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “on-demand rental facility”, “storage location for storing an item delivered by a delivery agent”, and “transportation means that is connected to the management server via the communication line and moves between the on-demand rental facility and the storage location to transport the item” are considered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a building unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a building unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the building to the user of the on-demand rental facility and the transportation means on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “on-demand rental facility is a room provided in a building” and “locking device of the building” are considered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a facility unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a facility unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the on-demand rental facility to the user of the on-demand rental facility and the transportation means on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “locking device of the on-demand rental facility” isconsidered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 further describes acquiring information for identifying an accommodation unit that accommodates an object as the item identification information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “an accommodation unit means that is connected to a communication line and has an accommodation unit as a plurality of the storage locations for accommodating items”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 further describes storing accommodation reservation information on a user and reservation date and time of the accommodation unit in associated with the facility reservation information, and acquiring the accommodation reservation information stored as the item identification information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “an accommodation reservation receiving unit for storing accommodation reservation information […] in the storage unit”, “receiving a reservation for the accommodation unit via the user input means”, and “the item identification information acquisition unit acquires the accommodation reservation information stored in the storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 describes steps for notifying a delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “an accommodation reservation information notifying unit” and “the storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 7 further describes displaying availability of accommodation units on the basis of the accommodation reservation information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a user input means includes a display unit for displaying information” and “an availability display unit for displaying availability […] on the display unit of the user input means on the basis of the accommodation reservation information stored in the storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 8 further describes storing attribute information on attributes of accommodation units for selecting the accommodation unit, displaying the attribute information to a user, and allowing the user to select an accommodation unit. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a storage unit stores attribute information”, “an accommodation unit information display unit for displaying the attribute […] on the display unit of the user input means”, and “an accommodation unit selection unit for allowing the user […] to select the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 9 further describes storing attribute information on the attribute of accommodation unit for selecting the accommodation unit, displaying the attribute of the accommodation unit, allowing a user to select the attribute of the accommodation unit, and determining an accommodation unit to be user by the user of the on-demand rental facility on the basis of the attribute of the accommodation unit selected by the user. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “storage unit stores the attribute information”, “an attribute information display unit for displaying the attribute…on the display unit of the user input means”, “an attribute selection unit for allowing the user…to select the attribute of the accommodation unit displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means”, and “an accommodation unit determination unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 10 further describes receiving a reservation for the accommodation unit at a reservation date/time different form the reservation date/time of the on-demand rental facility. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “the accommodation reservation receiving unit” and “the facility reservation receiving unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 11 further describes causing a transportation means to transport the object from the on-demand rental facility to the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received after the reservation date/time of the on-demand rental facility passes on the basis of the facility reservation information and the accommodation reservation information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “the transportation control unit”, “the accommodation reservation receiving unit”, and the “storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 12 further describes receiving information corresponding to delivery of the object to the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received, notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information of the accommodation unit of the delivery destination, and notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation unlocking key. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a delivery receiving unit”, “accommodation reservation receiving unit”, “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the accommodation unit that is a delivery destination for which the delivery is received by the delivery receiving unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “locking device of the accommodation unit” is considered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 13 further describes receiving collection information on collection of an object, and notifying the delivery agent of the collection information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “the delivery receiving unit” and “the delivery information notifying unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 14 further describes receiving information corresponding to recovery of the object in the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received, notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information on the accommodation unit of the receiver destination, and notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation unlocking key. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a recovery receiving unit”, “accommodation reservation receiving unit”, “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the accommodation unit that is a recovery destination for which the recovery is received by the recovery receiving unit, “recovery information notifying unit”, and “storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “locking device of the accommodation unit” is considered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 15 further describes receiving shipping information on shipping of the object, and notifying the delivery agent of the shipping information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “the recovery receiving unit” and “the recovery information notifying unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 16 recites the following limitations which, as a whole, are considered to recite concepts of commercial interactions:
[…] receiving information corresponding to delivery of the object in the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received […];
[…] notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information on the accommodation unit of the delivery destination […] and notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation unlocking key;
[…] receiving recovery of the object in the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received […];
[…] notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation reservation information on the accommodation unit of the recovery destination […] and notifying the delivery agent of the accommodation unlocking key;
[…] Acquiring rental information on a rental item that can be rented at the reservation date and time of the accommodation unit on the basis of the accommodation reservation information […] and storing the rental information […];
[…] displaying the rental item that can be rented at the reservation date and time of the accommodation unit […]; and
[…] allowing the user of the on-demand rental facility to select the rental item displayed […] and the object is the rental item selected […].
The claim further recites the additional elements of “delivery receiving unit”, “accommodation reservation receiving unit”, “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the accommodation unit that is a delivery destination for which the delivery is received by the delivery receiving unit”, “delivery information notifying unit”, “storage unit”, “recovery receiving unit”, “ “accommodation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing an accommodation unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the accommodation unit that is a recovery destination for which the recovery is received by the recovery receiving unit”, “recovery information notifying unit”, “rental information acquisition unit”, “storing the rental information in the storage unit”, “rental information display unit for displaying the rental item […] on a display unit of the user input means”, “rental item selection unit”, “the rental item displayed on the display unit of the user input means via the user input means”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “locking device of the accommodation unit” is considered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1, 4-5, and 12, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a transportation unlocking key issuing unit for issuing, to the transportation means, a transportation unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received by the accommodation reservation receiving unit”, and “an agent unlocking key issuing unit for issuing, to the delivery agent, an agent unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the accommodation unit for which the reservation is received by the accommodation reservation receiving unit, and being different from the transportation unlocking key”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 18 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1, 4-5, 12, and 17 by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “an agent unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the agent unlocking key on the basis of a predetermined condition”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 19 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1, 4-5, 12, and 17-18 by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “the agent unlocking key setting unit determines a specific time period to enable the agent unlocking key on the basis of the accommodation reservation information stored in the storage unit, enables the agent unlocking key at a start of the specific time period, and disables the agent unlocking key at an end of the specific time period”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 20 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1, 4-5, 12, and 17-18, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “the agent unlocking key setting unit disables the agent unlocking key after the agent unlocking key is used”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1, 4-5, 12, and 17, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a transportation unlocking key setting unit for enabling or disabling the transportation unlocking key on the basis of a predetermined condition” and “the transportation unlocking key setting unit enables the transportation unlocking key after disabling the agent unlocking key”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 22 further describes changing a usage fee for an accommodation unit and a usage period of the accommodation unit on a basis of a predetermined condition. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of a “changing unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 23 further describes storing location information on placement location of the first and second accommodation means, and displaying placement locations of the first and second accommodation means to a user. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of the “storage unit stores location information” and “a location information display unit for displaying the placement locations […] on a display unit of the user input means on the basis of the location information stored in the storage unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the “first accommodation means disposed at a predetermined location” and “second accommodation means disposed at a location different from the first accommodation means” are considered to be additional elements that are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and, thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the additional elements which are considered to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 24 further describes calculating a sum of a usage fee for the accommodation unit and a usage fee for the on-demand rental facility, and receiving settlement for the sum of usage fees. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
The claim further recites the additional elements of the “a sum calculation unit” and “a settlement receiving unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/tools cannot provide an inventive concept, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida WO2020250372A1, hereafter known as Ishida.
Claim 1: Ishida teaches the following:
An on-demand rental facility management system comprising: on-demand rental facility in which usage time is set and facility is rented to a user; (¶ [06]: The rental space of the present invention is a rental space that rents space to a user by setting a usage time. A reservation management department that manages reservation information including user information and data/time information); (¶ [018]: the host, which is a management device for the rental space, is composed of a server device); (¶ [015]: the rental space includes a plurality of rooms); (¶ [016]: the building is provided with a plurality of rooms, such as a conference room and training room).
a management server for managing the on-demand rental facility; (¶ [06]: see above); (¶ [018]: see above).
a user input means that is connected to the management server via a communication line and receives information input by the user of the on-demand rental facility, the on-demand rental facility management system comprising: a storage location for storing an item delivered by a delivery agent; (¶ [018]: see above); (¶ [015]: the host and a terminal device, such as a mobile phone owned by the user, are connected to each other over an internet communication line. The user accesses the reservation site using the terminal device as a user input means, searches for a room, specifies the usage time, and executes the reservation); (¶ [025]: at a predetermined time before the reserved time, the management control unit issues a transport command to a transport means to transport equipment from a warehouse to the reserved room based on the reservation information).
a transportation means that is connected to the management server via the communication line and moves between the on-demand rental facility and the storage location to transport the item, wherein the management server includes: a storage unit for storing information; (¶ [025]: at a predetermined time before the reserved time, the management control unit issues a transport command to a transport means to transport equipment from a warehouse to the reserved room based on the reservation information); (¶ [0026]: the transport control means receives a transport command from the management control unit via the Internet, and drives and controls the transport means based on the transport command); (¶ [013]: the space allocation unit of the management device allocates the space according to the usage reservation and stores the allocation information in the storage unit, and the management control unit stores the reservation information, the equipment information, and the allocation information).
a facility reservation receiving unit for storing facility reservation information on the user and reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility in the storage unit by receiving a reservation for the on-demand rental facility via the user input means; (¶ [015]: the host and a terminal device, such as a mobile phone owned by the user, are connected to each other over an internet communication line. The user accesses the reservation site using the terminal device as a user input means, searches for a room, specifies the usage time, and executes the reservation); (¶ [013]: the space allocation unit of the management device allocates the space according to the usage reservation and stores the allocation information in the storage unit, and the management control unit stores the reservation information, the equipment information, and the allocation information); (¶ [018]: The management control unit includes a reservation management unit that manages reservation information reserved by the user via the reservation site ).
a transportation receiving unit for receiving a transportation reservation for an object, which is an item related to the user of the on-demand rental facility, via the user input means; (¶ [015]: see above); (¶ [0019]: when the reservation from the user includes a request for use of equipment, the management control unit reads the equipment information related to the equipment from the equipment storage unit, and makes a reservation by associating the equipment information with the reservation information); (¶[022]: the equipment used by the user is a user equipment that the user has deposited in advance and stored in the warehouse, and an ID that associates the deposited user with the equipment is assigned by the equipment management unit. It is stored in the equipment storage unit, and is managed by the transportation control means based on the ID); (¶ [025]: at a predetermined time before the reserved time, the management control unit issues a transport command to a transport means to transport equipment from a warehouse to the reserved room based on the reservation information); (¶ [027]: By storing the rental equipment in the storage unit, the rental equipment can be reliably transported to the room reserved according to the usage date and time reserved by the user).
an item identification information acquisition unit for acquiring item identification information for identifying the object stored in the storage location when the transportation reservation for the object is received by the transportation receiving unit; (¶ [019]: see above); (¶ [022]: see above); (¶ [025]: see above).
and a transportation control unit for causing the transportation means to transport the object from the storage location to the on-demand rental facility at the reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit and the item identification information acquired by the item identification information acquisition unit. (¶ [019]: see above); (¶ [022]: see above); (¶ [025]: see above).
Claim 2: Ishida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ishida teaches the following:
The on-demand rental facility is a room provided inside a building, the building includes a locking device; (¶ [015]: the rental space includes a plurality of rooms); (¶ [016]: the building is provided with a plurality of rooms, such as a conference room and training room. Each room is provided with a locking device for locking/unlocking the entrance/exit).
The management server includes a building unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a building unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the building to the user of the on-demand rental facility and the transportation means on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit. (¶ [016]: the building is provided with a plurality of rooms, such as a conference room and training room. Each room is provided with a locking device for locking/unlocking the entrance/exit. The lock device can be unlocked by an authentication key issued from the reservation site to the user’s terminal device. The authentication key is randomly changed each time it is used); (¶ [025]: When it is a predetermined time before the reserved time, the management control unit issues a transport command to the command generation unit to transport the equipment to the reserved room based on the reservation information and the equipment information); (¶ [0026]: the transport means is controlled by the management control unit to transport the equipment to the reserved room according to the reservation of the user); (¶ [017]: the door to a room may be opened and closed by the transport control means such that the transport means may carry equipment into the room).
Claim 3: Ishida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ishida teaches the following:
The on-demand rental facility includes a locking device of the on-demand rental facility; (¶ [015]: the rental space includes a plurality of rooms); (¶ [016]: the building is provided with a plurality of rooms, such as a conference room and training room. Each room is provided with a locking device for locking/unlocking the entrance/exit).
The management server includes a facility unlocking key issuing unit for issuing a facility unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the on-demand facility to the user of the on-demand rental facility and the transportation means on the basis of the facility reservation information stored in the storage unit. (¶ [016]: the building is provided with a plurality of rooms, such as a conference room and training room. Each room is provided with a locking device for locking/unlocking the entrance/exit. The lock device can be unlocked by an authentication key issued from the reservation site to the user’s terminal device. The authentication key is randomly changed each time it is used); (¶ [025]: When it is a predetermined time before the reserved time, the management control unit issues a transport command to the command generation unit to transport the equipment to the reserved room based on the reservation information and the equipment information); (¶ [0026]: the transport means is controlled by the management control unit to transport the equipment to the reserved room according to the reservation of the user); (¶ [017]: the door to a room may be opened and closed by the transport control means such that the transport means may carry equipment into the room).
Claim 4: Ishida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ishida teaches the following:
An accommodation means that is connected to a communication line and has an accommodation unit as a plurality of the storage locations for accommodating items, wherein the item identification acquisition unit acquires information for identifying the accommodation unit that accommodates the object as the item identification information. (¶ [06]: an equipment management department that manages equipment information related to equipment stored in the equipment storage means, and the reservation information and a storage unit that stores the equipment information. The management control unit sets the reservation date and time based on the reservation information and the equipment information. A transportation command for transporting the equipment to the reserved space is generated, the transportation control means receives the transportation command from the management control unit via the communication line, and the equipment is based on the transportation command); (¶[022]: the equipment used by the user is a user equipment that the user has deposited in advance and stored in the warehouse, and an ID that associates the deposited user with the equipment is assigned by the equipment management unit. It is stored in the equipment storage unit, and is managed by the transportation control means based on the ID); (¶ [017]: a plurality of racks are provided in the warehouse, and equipment stored in a container is stored in each rack. Each rack and equipment is assigned an ID and is managed by the transportation control means, and is also managed by the equipment management unit of the host. The transportation means is controlled to deliver the container of the equipment to and from each rack in the warehouse).
Examiner Notes
Claim 5 has been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 6-24, by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claim 5 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claim 5 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of claim 5. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Ishida WO2020250372A1;
Tanaka JP2012185568A;
Bayer et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0066002;
Finlow-Bates et al. U.S. Publication No. 2016/0086175;
Metcalf et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,682,027;
Cupersmith et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0304559;
Yeo KR20200059074A;
Huang et al. CN110826963A;
Ishida discloses a system configured to manage a rental space including a plurality of rooms that may be rented to users. The system enables a user to reserve a particular room at an indicated date and time, and the reservation information for the room is stored by the system. The system further comprises a warehouse as an equipment storage means for storing equipment that may be rented and transported by a self-propelled trolley from the warehouse to the rental room in accordance with the reservation information of the rental room. Ishida, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Ishida does not teach or suggest that a user may separately reserve both a rental room (i.e., a facility) and the equipment storage means itself (i.e., an accommodation unit for storing items), such that the reservation information for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. At most, Ishida teaches that a user may reserve the equipment, but does not teach a user reserving the equipment storage means itself which may be utilized by the user to store their own items such as tools and equipment (see ¶ [0004] of Specification), or a backpack (see ¶ [0094] of Specification). Furthermore, Ishida does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Tanaka discloses a facility reservation system that allows a user to reserve a facility and equipment at a desired date and time. Accordingly, the user may be granted access to the facility and an equipment storage which stores the reserved equipment based on the reservations. Tanaka, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Tanaka does not teach or suggest that a user may separately reserve both a facility and the equipment storage itself (i.e., an accommodation unit for storing items), such that the reservation information for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. At most, Tanaka teaches that a user may reserve the equipment, but does not teach a user reserving the equipment storage itself which may be utilized by the user to store their own items such as tools and equipment (see ¶ [0004] of Specification), or a backpack (see ¶ [0094] of Specification). Furthermore, Tanaka does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Bayer discloses a system configured to receive booking requests for trip items for a group trip of users. The group trip may comprise one or more trip items, such as accommodations, flights, transportation, tours, or other activities. The accommodations, such as a room, may include amenities such as closets. The system comprises a booking session store that stores booking session data for all booking sessions performed by clients. Bayer, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Bayer does explicitly disclose that a user may separately reserve both a facility and an accommodation unit for storing an item, such that the reservation information (including a date and time) for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Bayer does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Finlow-Bates discloses a peer-to-peer transaction system that is configured to enable a first party to submit a request to obtain use rights for a property belonging to a second party. The first party may access the property belonging to the second party, which includes accessing one of a hotel room, a vehicle, a locker, and/or another time-accessible good or service. Finlow-Bates, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Finlow-Bates does explicitly disclose that a user may separately reserve both a facility and an accommodation unit for storing an item, such that the reservation information (including a date and time) for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Finlow-Bates does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Metcalf discloses a system that pertains to venues having scalable designated ‘Expedited Service Areas’ at, or near to, their locations to provide scheduled transaction, or interaction, services to attendees who have—prior to their arrival at the venue-location—employed the system to order, schedule or reserve one or more venue deliverables, such as goods, services, and/or activities. For example, upon arriving at a facility/venue equipped with the system, customer itineraries can direct customers to a reserved parking spot and then to each scheduled interaction/activity and/or service. Metcalf, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Metcalf does explicitly disclose that a user may separately reserve both a facility and an accommodation unit for storing an item, such that the reservation information (including a date and time) for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Metcalf does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Cupersmith discloses a system comprising a robot that is configured to perform services for a casino guest. The robot may allow the guest to make a reservation for a hotel or restaurant. Furthermore, the robot is configured to receive a request for drop box service (the request including a pickup location and a requestor), navigate to the pickup location, authenticate an identity of the requestor upon arrival at the pickup location, and provide the requestor access to a secure storage area of the robot. Cupersmith, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Cupersmith does explicitly disclose that a user may separately reserve both a facility and an accommodation unit for storing an item, such that the reservation information (including a date and time) for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Cupersmith does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Yeo discloses a system that allows users to reserve a luggage storage space. Furthermore, a deliverer may deliver the luggage stored in the luggage storage space to a place requested by the user. Yeo, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Yeo does explicitly disclose that a user may separately reserve both a facility and an accommodation unit for storing an item, such that the reservation information (including a date and time) for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Yeo does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
Huang discloses a system that allows a resident of a guest room in a hotel to place a shopping order, and further control a delivery robot to transport the purchased commodities to the guest room. Huang, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 5. In particular, Huang does explicitly disclose that a user may separately reserve both a facility and an accommodation unit for storing an item, such that the reservation information (including a date and time) for the accommodation unit is stored in association with the facility reservation information, as required by claim 5 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Huang does not teach or suggest acquiring the accommodation reservation information as the item identification information, where the item identification information identifies an objected stored in a storage location.
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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628