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 .
Priority
The present application is a continuation application of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2022/047692 filed on Dec. 23, 2022 which designated the U.S. and claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-009431 filed on Jan. 25, 2022. The entire disclosures of all of the above applications are incorporated herein by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2024 was filed along with the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 07/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Election/Restriction requirement for a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 07/08/2024. In the response, Applicant elected claims 1-9 under Group I. In the application, claims 1-9 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claim 1 does fall into one of the four statutory categories of “system” claim. Nevertheless, the claim(s) still is/are considered as abstract idea (i.e., Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the abstract idea of:
“a first server [a first human] and a second server [a second human] connected to each other via a communication network (Human Activity: a first human and a second human are in communication),
wherein:
an authorization policy defining a [[vehicle]] function and a condition for executing the [[vehicle]] function is registered in advance in the first server [with the first human] (Human Activity: the first human stores an authorization policy defining function and a condition for executing the function);
upon receiving an authorization request for the [[vehicle]] function from an external server [an external entity] that provides a service along with an execution condition for the service (Human Activity: the first human receives an authorization request for the function from an external entity along with an execution condition for the service),
the first server [the first human] stores the execution condition and an authorization policy corresponding to the service in association with each other, and transmits the authorization request for the [[vehicle]] function to the second server [the second human] (Human Activity: the first human stores the execution condition and an authorization policy corresponding to the service and sends the authorization request for the function to the second human);
upon accepting the authorization request, the second server [the second human] obtains authorization for the [[vehicle]] function and then issues a second access token to the first server [the first human] (Human Activity: based on the acceptance of the authorization request the second human issues a token to the first human); and
the first server [the first human] holds the second access token and issues, to the external server [the external entity], a first access token associated with the second access token, the execution condition, and the authorization policy (Human Activity: the first human keeps the token from the second human and based on the token issues another token to the external entity), and
upon receiving a request for execution of the service along with the first access token from the external server [the external entity] or a user who uses the service, the first server [the first human] determines whether the execution condition is satisfied according to the execution condition and the authorization policy associated with the first access token (Human Activity: the external entity request execution of the service and present the issued another token to the first human and the first human verifies the another token and checks if the token is valid), and
when the execution condition is satisfied, the first server [the first human] requests the second server [the second human] to instruct execution of the [[vehicle]] function along with the second access token (Human Activity: based on the satisfaction of execution condition, the first human request the second human to instruct execution of the function)”.
The claim generically recites the concept of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which fall into the Abstract Idea category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
For example, the recited steps of claims can all be performed by multiple human-beings based on the issuance of token and exchanging the tokens to verify each other and receive requested services.
Examiner would like to note that the recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., a first server and a second server communication each other and issuing tokens to each other and to an external entity) are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“a vehicle utilization system comprising a first server a second server” (claim 1),
Recitation of these additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant spec. [0051-0052] discloses that present disclosure may be implemented by a dedicated computer provided by configuring a processor and a memory programmed to execute one or more functions embodied by a computer program) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., a vehicle utilization system comprising a first server a second server) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. [0051-0052] discloses that present disclosure may be implemented by a dedicated computer provided by configuring a processor and a memory programmed to execute one or more functions embodied by a computer program) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, recite steps which fall under the Abstract Idea category which recites the concept of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which fall into the Abstract Idea category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
Overall, the analysis of the claims 1-9 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first server and a second server connected to …” in claim 1,
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-9 inherit these deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
““a first server and a second server connected to …” in claim 1,
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-9 inherit these deficiencies.
Additionally, independent claim 1 recites “the first server stores the execution condition and an authorization policy corresponding to the service in association with each other”. It is unclear for an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprehend as to what is meant by “in association with each other”. Therefore, it renders the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-9 inherit these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris., (US20210083873A1) in view of Gronsbell et al., (US11625957B2).
Regarding claim 1, Harris discloses:
A [[vehicle]] utilization system comprising
a first server (i.e., authorization server 106A and 106B) and a second server (i.e., resource server 108A and 108B) connected to each other via a communication network ([0018] FIG. 1 illustrates an example environment 100 including a client device 102A and 102B, a resource server 108A and 108B, and an authorization server 106A and 106B),
wherein:
an authorization policy (i.e., policy information) defining a [[vehicle]] function and a condition for executing the [[vehicle]] function is registered in advance in the first server ([0022] In some embodiments, the protected resource 126 includes access to an operation and/or function of the resource server 108B or other computer system such as an application server as described in greater detail below in connection with FIG. 10; [0023] the authorization server 106A and 106B includes a variety of different computing systems capable of providing authentication information (e.g., bearer tokens, access tokens, policy information, etc. . . . ) for use by the resource server 108A and 108B; );
upon receiving an authorization request (i.e., Fig. 2; step 210) for the [[vehicle]] function from an external server (i.e., client device 102A and 102B) that provides a service along with an execution condition for the service ([0021] In an example implementation, the client device 102A obtains a first bearer token 112 from the authorization server 106A. The first bearer token 112 may be obtained in response to a refresh token request (not shown in FIG. 1 for simplicity) provided by the client device 102A to the authorization server 106A in accordance with the OAuth protocol or variations thereof; [0037] As illustrated in FIG. 2, the client device 202 may initially obtain a bearer token 212 to include in the intent request 214. The bearer token 212, in various embodiments, includes access tokens generated and obtained in accordance with an OAuth protocol or version thereof),
the first server stores the execution condition and an authorization policy corresponding to the service in association with each other, and transmits the authorization request (i.e., Fig. 2; step 218) for the vehicle function to the second server ([0039] The verification request 216 may include a variety of different requests that cause the authorization server 206 to return, in response to the verification request 216, verification information 218 that indicates whether the client device 202 or a user associated with the client device 202 (including a user account or other identification information) is authorized to access the protected resources);
upon accepting the authorization request, the second server obtains authorization for the [[vehicle]] function and then issues a second access token (i.e., Bearer Token 212) to the first server ([0037] In order to obtain the bearer token 212 (or other authentication information), the client device 202 may transmit an authorization request 210 to the authorization server 206; [0038] At some point in time after obtaining the bearer token 212, the client device 202 may generate the intent request 214 and transmit the intent request 214 to the resource server 208; [0039] In response to the intent request 214, the resource server 208, in various embodiments, verifies the bearer token 212 with the authorization server 206. For example, the resource server 208 transmits a verification request 216 to the authorization server 206 to validate the bearer token 212); and
the first server holds the second access token and issues, to the external server, a first access token (i.e., Fig.2; Bearer Token 216) associated with the second access token, the execution condition, and the authorization policy, and upon receiving a request for execution of the service along with the first access token from the external server or a user (i.e., client device 102A and 102B) who uses the service ([0039] In response to the intent request 214, the resource server 208, in various embodiments, verifies the bearer token 212 with the authorization server 206. For example, the resource server 208 transmits a verification request 216 to the authorization server 206 to validate the bearer token 212 … The verification request 216 may include a variety of different requests that cause the authorization server 206 to return, in response to the verification request 216, verification information 218 that indicates whether the client device 202 or a user associated with the client device 202 (including a user account or other identification information) is authorized to access the protected resources),
the first server determines whether the execution condition is satisfied according to the execution condition and the authorization policy associated with the first access token, and when the execution condition is satisfied, the first server requests the second server to instruct execution of the [[vehicle]] function along with the second access token ([0040] Returning to the example above, the resource server 208, once the verification information 218 is obtained, may determine whether the verification information 218 indicated that the client device 202 is authorized to access the protected resource. If the verification information 218 indicates that the client device 202 is authorized, the resource server 208 may generate an access key 226 to allow the client device 202 to access the protected resource during a specified interval of time as described above).
Harris fails to disclose:
The system is a vehicle utilization system comprising vehicle functions.
However, Gronsbell discloses:
The system is a vehicle utilization system comprising vehicle functions (Col. 60, Line # 8-14; With reference to FIG. 20, a user menu of the software application implemented on the subscriber device and/or the dealer device is depicted. For example, in some embodiments, the system may provide personalized and vehicle-specific information on the dealer associated with the user, roadside assistance, a vehicle protection locker, and/or maintenance information as disclosed herein; Col. 60, Line # 22-34; In some embodiment, a geo-fencing option may be provided which may comprise the apparatus retrieving location information (e.g., via GPS receiver or cellular receiver on the apparatus, vehicle, or vehicle apparatus) and enable or disable one or more functionalities based on the location of the vehicle and/or user relative to the geo-fences (e.g., a user must be within a predetermined geographic area to activate one or more of the features described herein and/or one or more functionalities associated with the vehicle). In some embodiments, the geo-fences may limit the vehicle travel range, such as by reporting to a designated user device when the vehicle leaves the fence).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for securing sensitive information and other protected resources to ensure that unauthorized access to sensitive information and other protected resources of Harris and include a system which comprises of controlling vehicle functions according to defined policies, as disclosed by Gronsbell.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Harris and Gronsbell is to merge the vehicle function policies into the prevention of unauthorized access to sensitive information of the vehicle to only protect the vehicle but also the user of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
the first server includes an application programming interface (API) that issues the first access token defined by the authorization policy associated with the service provided by the external server, and an API that executes a vehicle function controlled by the execution condition defined by the authorization policy, and the second server includes an API that issues the second access token based on a predetermined user authentication coordination protocol, and an API that executes a vehicle function access-controlled by the second access token (Harris: [0027], [0035], [0038], & [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
the first access token issued by the first server is an identifier used to access an application programming interface (API) that executes a vehicle function, controlled by an execution condition defined by the authorization policy, and the second access token issued by the second server is an identifier used to access an API that executes a vehicle function, access-controlled based on a predetermined user authentication coordination protocol (Harris: [0027], [0035], [0038], & [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 3, wherein
the predetermined user authentication coordination protocol is an authentication protocol conforming to OpenID Connect (OIDC)/OAuth 2.0 (Harris: [0015], [0021] & [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
a function of a vehicle, a date and time when the function is available, and a location of the vehicle where the function is available are set as the authorization policy in the first server (Gronsbell discloses concept relating to authorization policies for vehicle functions. With respect to “a function of a vehicle, a date and time when the function is available, and a location of the vehicle where the function is available are set as the authorization policy”, this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data, while the description of data is not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
a function of unlocking or locking a luggage compartment of the vehicle, a date and time when the function is executable, and a location of the vehicle where the function is executable are set as the authorization policy in the first server (Gronsbell discloses concept relating to authorization policies for vehicle functions. With respect to “a function of unlocking or locking a luggage compartment of the vehicle, a date and time when the function is executable, and a location of the vehicle where the function is executable are set as the authorization policy”, this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data, while the description of data is not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
a function of opening a fuel cap or a charging port of a vehicle, a date and time when the function is executable, and a location of the vehicle where the function is executable are set as the authorization policy in the first server (Gronsbell discloses concept relating to authorization policies for vehicle functions. With respect to “a function of opening a fuel cap or a charging port of a vehicle, a date and time when the function is executable, and a location of the vehicle where the function is executable are set as the authorization policy”, this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data, while the description of data is not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
a function of enabling driving of the vehicle, a date and time when the function is executable, and an area where the driving is permitted are set as the authorization policy in the first server (Gronsbell discloses concept relating to authorization policies for vehicle functions. With respect to “a function of enabling driving of the vehicle, a date and time when the function is executable, and an area where the driving is permitted are set as the authorization policy”, this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data, while the description of data is not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Harris and Gronsbell discloses:
The vehicle utilization system according to claim 1, wherein
the second server, requested by the first server to instruct execution of the vehicle function along with the second access token, causes the [[vehicle]] to execute the function (Harris: [0021] & [0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qi et al., US20210250344
Yabe., US11122028
Srinivasan et al., US20160028737A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491