DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to response to restriction request filed on 9/11/25. Claims 1 and 12-17 are withdrawn. Claims 2-11 are pending and examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 9/22/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-159250 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was on 8/15/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group 2 (claims 2-11) in the reply filed on 9/11/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups 1 and 3 are not a search burden. This is not found persuasive because group 1 recites activating a link between smart phone and a car (see claim 1 “activate a second correspondence relation between the first terminal and the third terminal”), group 2 recites a server registering the smartphone with the car (see claim 2, “accepting setting of a correspondence relation between the first target and the second target”) and group 3 recites the car processing a registration request (see claim 12 “receiving a linking demand”). Activating a link between smart phone and a car as recited by group 1 is different than a server registering the smartphone with the car as recited by group 2 which is further different than the car processing a registration request as recited by group 3. The differences between the identified claim groups I, II and III create a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claim 2). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 2 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of registering a user with a rental car, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A system, comprising:
a management server;
a plurality of first terminals each corresponding to a first target; and
a plurality of second terminals each corresponding a second target,
wherein the plurality of first terminals and the plurality of second terminals are configured so that in response to occurrence of a use relation between the first target and the second target, at least one of the first terminal corresponding to the first target, and the second terminal corresponding to the second target transmits a linking demand to the management server,
the management server is configured to execute:
accepting setting of a correspondence relation between the first target and the second target, in response to receipt of the linking demand; and
if, while setting of a first correspondence relation between a first first target and a first second target is established, setting of a second correspondence relation between the first first target and a second second target different from the first second target is accepted, (I) releasing the first correspondence relation, and establishing setting of the second correspondence relation, or (II) not permitting setting the second correspondence relation, and maintaining the setting of the first correspondence relation, according to a predetermined rule.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A system, comprising”, “a management server”, “a plurality of first terminals”, “a plurality of second terminals” and “wherein the plurality of first terminals and the plurality of second terminals are configured”. This is merely “apply it” as the “system”, “management server”, “plurality of first terminals” and “plurality of second terminals” are claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“transmits a linking demand to the management server”. This is merely “apply it” as the “transmits a linking demand” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“the management server is configured to execute”. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server is configured to execute” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
(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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 3 recited “wherein the management server is further configured to receive a selection result by the first first target”, “the management server is configured” and “(I) to release the first correspondence relation, and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if the second correspondence relation is selected in the received selection result, and (II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation, and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the first correspondence relation is selected in the selection result”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the management server is configured”. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server is configured” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 4 recited “wherein the management server is configured” and “(I) to release the first correspondence relation, and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a predetermined relation is not established between the first second target and the second second target, and (II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation, and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the predetermined relation is established between the first second target and the second second target”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the management server is configured”. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server is configured” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 5 recited “wherein the management server is configured” and ”(I) to release the first correspondence relation, and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a type of the second second target is different from a type of the first second target, and (II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation, and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the type of the second second target is identical to the type of the first second target”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the management server is configured”. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server is configured” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 6 recited “wherein the first target is a user, the second target is an object to be used by the user, and it is configured such that in a case where a type of the first second target is a rental object, the management server” and “(I) releases the first correspondence relation, and establishes the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a type of the second second target is not the rental object, and (II) does not permit setting the second correspondence relation, and maintains the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the type of the second second target is the rental object”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the management server”. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 7 recited “wherein the object to be used is a vehicle, and the rental object is a rental car”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a vehicle” and “a rental car”. This is general linking as the “vehicle” and “rental car” do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 8 recited “wherein each of the first terminals includes a positioning module, each of the second terminals includes a positioning module, it is configured such that upon acceptance of the setting of the second correspondence relation, the management server further executes”, “obtaining, from a first first terminal corresponding to the first first target, a current position of the first first terminal measured by the positioning module of the first first terminal”, “obtaining, from a second second terminal corresponding to the second second target, a current position of the second second terminal measured by the positioning module of the second second terminal, and the management server is configured” and ”(I) to release the first correspondence relation, and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a relation between the obtained current positions of the first first terminal and the second second terminal satisfies a condition of the use relation” and “(II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation, and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if a relation between the obtained current positions of the first first terminal and the second second terminal does not satisfy a condition of the use relation”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“wherein each of the first terminals includes a positioning module, each of the second terminals includes a positioning module”, “the management server further executes”, “a first first terminal”, “the positioning module of the first first terminal“, “a second second terminal”, “the positioning module of the second second terminal”.. This is merely “apply it” as the “each of the first terminals includes a positioning module, each of the second terminals includes a positioning module”, “the management server further executes”, “a first first terminal”, “the positioning module of the first first terminal“, “a second second terminal”, “the positioning module of the second second terminal” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 9 recited “wherein the management server is further configured to inhibit release of the correspondence relation by locking the setting of the correspondence relation until a predetermined condition is satisfied, if the correspondence relation is set with a predetermined type of the second target, and it is configured such that in a case where the first second target is of the predetermined type, the management server” and “(II) does not permit setting the second correspondence relation, and maintains the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the setting of the second correspondence relation is accepted while the first correspondence relation is locked; and (I) releases the first correspondence relation, and establishes setting of the second correspondence relation, if the setting of the second correspondence relation is accepted after the locking of the first correspondence relation is released”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the management server is further configured”.. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server is configured” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 10 recited “wherein the first target is a user, the second target of the predetermined type is a mobile body of a public transport system, and the predetermined condition is completion of payment of a charge for use of the mobile body of the public transport system”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a mobile body of a public transport system”. This is general linking as the “mobile body of the public transport system” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 9 recited “wherein it is configured so that in response to establishment of the correspondence relation between the first target and the second target, the management server further executes activation of exercising an authority associated with the corresponding first target through the second target with which the correspondence relation is set”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the management server further executes”.. This is merely “apply it” as the “management server further executes” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of registering a user with a rental car, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
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.
Claims 2-5, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120203396 A1 (Ochi) in view of US 20190111890 A1 (Terashi).
As to claim 2,
Ochi teaches,
A system (FIG. 1, item 1, para. 15 “an in-vehicle short range wireless communication system”), comprising:
a management server (FIG. 1, item 5, para. 16 “control unit”);
a plurality of first terminals each corresponding to a first target (FIG. 1, items 3, para. 15 “cellular phone 2”); and
a plurality of second terminals each corresponding a second target (FIG. 1, items 2, 4, para. 15 “a first in-vehicle apparatus 3, and a second in-vehicle apparatus 4”), wherein the plurality of first terminals and the plurality of second terminals are configured so that in response to occurrence of a use relation between the first target and the second target (FIG. 2, item S1, para. 23 “received a BT communication link request”), at least one of the first terminal corresponding to the first target, and the second terminal corresponding to the second target transmits a linking demand to the management server (FIG. 2, item S1, para. 23 “received a BT communication link request”),
the management server is configured to execute (FIG. 1, item 5, para. 24 “the control unit 5 executes”):
accepting setting of a correspondence relation between the first target and the second target, in response to receipt of the linking demand (para. 24 “When the control unit 5 determines that the first in-vehicle apparatus 3 sent the connection request (S2: 1.sup.st in-vehicle apparatus), the control unit 5 executes a first connection process”); and
if, while setting of a first correspondence relation between a first first target and a first second target is established, setting of a second correspondence relation between the first first target and a second second target [different from the first second target] is accepted (para. 24 “when the control unit 5 determines that the second in-vehicle apparatus 4 sent the connection request (S2: 2.sup.nd in-vehicle apparatus), the control unit 5 executes a second connection process”), (I) releasing the first correspondence relation (para. 39 “after one of the in-vehicle apparatuses that was coupled to the control unit has completed its profile function, and the control unit disconnects the short range communication link”), and establishing setting of the second correspondence relation (FIG. 4, item S26, para. 33 “establish a BT communication link between the BT communication unit 7 and the BT communication unit 17 of the second in-vehicle apparatus 4, and to couple a serial port profile (S26)”), or (II) not permitting setting the second correspondence relation, and maintaining the setting of the first correspondence relation, according to a predetermined rule (para. 20 “a BT communication link is not established between the cellular phone 2 and the second in-vehicle apparatus 4”).
Ouchi does not teach,
[if, while setting …, setting of … a second second target] different from the first second target [is accepted, …].
however, Terashi teaches,
[if, while setting …, setting of … a second second target] different from the first second target (para. 31 “The terminal-vehicle linking apparatus 1 can be connected to one or a plurality of in-vehicle apparatuses 2”) [, …].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine registering a mobile device with a vehicle of Ochi with additional user authentication of Terashima because additional user authentication improves registering a mobile device with a vehicle because “has a higher security in that the owner has to ride the vehicle and operate the in-vehicle apparatus”, see Terashima para. 88.
As to claim 3, combination Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi teaches,
wherein the management server is further configured to receive a selection result by the first first target (FIG. 2, item S2, para. 24 “the control unit 5 determines whether the connection request notice was sent by the BT communication unit 14 of the first in-vehicle apparatus 3 or the BT communication unit 17 of the second in-vehicle apparatus 4 (S2)”), and the management server is configured: (I) to release the first correspondence relation (para. 39 “after one of the in-vehicle apparatuses that was coupled to the control unit has completed its profile function, and the control unit disconnects the short range communication link”), and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if the second correspondence relation is selected in the received selection result (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24 “when the control unit 5 determines that the second in-vehicle apparatus 4 sent the connection request (S2: 2.sup.nd in-vehicle apparatus), the control unit 5 executes a second connection process (S4)”), and (II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation, and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the first correspondence relation is selected in the selection result (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24 “When the control unit 5 determines that the first in-vehicle apparatus 3 sent the connection request (S2: 1.sup.st in-vehicle apparatus), the control unit 5 executes a first connection process (S3)”).
As to claim 4, combination of Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi teaches,
wherein the management server is configured: (I) to release the first correspondence relation (para. 39), and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a predetermined relation is not established between the first second target and the second second target (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24), and (II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the predetermined relation is established between the first second target and the second second target (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24).
As to claim 5, combination of Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi teaches,
wherein the management server is configured: (I) to release the first correspondence relation (para. 39), and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a type of the second second target is different from a type of the first second target (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24), and (II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the type of the second second target is identical to the type of the first second target (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24).
As to claim 8, combination of Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi also teaches,
wherein each of the first terminals includes a positioning module (para. 19 “The navigation apparatus”), each of the second terminals includes a positioning module (para. 19), it is configured such that upon acceptance of the setting of the second correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24), the management server further executes (FIG. 1, item 5, para. 24):
obtaining, from a first first terminal corresponding to the first first target, a current position of the first first terminal measured by the positioning module of the first first terminal (para. 19 “ identifying a position of the vehicle”);
obtaining, from a second second terminal corresponding to the second second target, a current position of the second second terminal measured by the positioning module of the second second terminal (para. 19 “ identifying a position of the vehicle”), and the management server is configured: (I) to release the first correspondence relation (para. 39), and to establish the setting of the second correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24), if a relation between the obtained current positions of the first first terminal and the second second terminal satisfies a condition of the use relation (para. 19); and
(II) not to permit setting the second correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), and to maintain the setting of the first correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), if a relation between the obtained current positions of the first first terminal and the second second terminal does not satisfy a condition of the use relation (para. 19).
As to claim 9, combination of Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi teaches,
wherein the management server is further configured to inhibit release of the correspondence relation by locking the setting of the correspondence relation until a predetermined condition is satisfied, if the correspondence relation is set with a predetermined type of the second target (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), and it is configured such that in a case where the first second target is of the predetermined type (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), the management server: (II) does not permit setting the second correspondence relation, and maintains the setting of the first correspondence relation (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), if the setting of the second correspondence relation is accepted while the first correspondence relation is locked (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24); and (I) releases the first correspondence relation, and establishes setting of the second correspondence relation, if the setting of the second correspondence relation is accepted after the locking of the first correspondence relation is released (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24).
As to claim 11, combination Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi also teaches,
wherein it is configured so that in response to establishment of the correspondence relation between the first target and the second target (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24), the management server further executes activation of exercising an authority associated with the corresponding first target through the second target with which the correspondence relation is set (para. 18, 19 “a hands-free profile is coupled to the cellular phone 2”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi in view of Terashi in further view of US 20140227979 A1 (Maihoefer).
As to claim 6, combination of Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Ouchi teaches,
wherein the first target is a user, the second target is an object to be used by the user, and it is configured such that in a case where a type of the first second target [is a rental object], the management server: (I) releases the first correspondence relation (para. 39), and establishes the setting of the second correspondence relation, if a type of the second second target (FIG. 2, item S4, para. 24) [is not the rental object], and (II) does not permit setting the second correspondence relation, and maintains the setting of the first correspondence relation, if the type of the second second target (FIG. 2, item S3, para. 24) [is the rental object].
combination of Ouchi and Terashima do not teach,
wherein [… a type of the first second target] is a rental object, [… a type of the second second target] is not the rental object, and […the type of the second second target] is the rental object.
however, Maihoefer teaches,
wherein [… a type of the first second target] is a rental object (para. 22 “a vehicle renter”), [… a type of the second second target] is not the rental object (para. 3 “the vehicle owner ”), and […the type of the second second target] is the rental object (para. 22 “a ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine registering a mobile device with a vehicle of Ochi with additional user authentication of Terashima with vehicle rental management of Maihoefer because vehicle rental management improves registering a mobile device with a vehicle because vehicle rental management provides “frequent exchange of the vehicle”, see Maihoefer para. 42.
As to claim 7, combination of Ouchi, Terashima and Maihoefer teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Ouchi also teaches,
wherein the object to be used is a vehicle (para. 15 “a vehicle”),
combination of Ouchi and Terashima do not teach,
the rental object is a rental car.
however, Maihoefer teaches,
the rental object is a rental car (para. 42 “rental vehicles”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine registering a mobile device with a vehicle of Ochi with additional user authentication of Terashima with vehicle rental management of Maihoefer because vehicle rental management improves registering a mobile device with a vehicle because vehicle rental management provides “frequent exchange of the vehicle”, see Maihoefer para. 42.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi in view of Terashi in further view of US 20150120416 A1 (Davis).
As to claim 10, combination of Ouchi and Terashi teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 9.
Ouchi teaches,
wherein the first target is a user (para. 15 “a user and the cellular phone 2”), [the second target of the predetermined type is a mobile body of a public transport system, and the predetermined condition is completion of payment of a charge for use of [the mobile body of the public transport system].
combination of Ouchi and Terashi do not teach,
wherein [the first target is a user], the second target of the predetermined type is a mobile body of a public transport system, and the predetermined condition is completion of payment of a charge for use of [the mobile body of the public transport system (para. 2 “managing a fleet of vehicles for hire, such as taxis, trains, buses” and para. 33 “receive certain passenger information 204, such as payment information, from passengers 229, forwards the payment information to a credit card processor, and selectively returns a verification that the payment was successfully made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine registering a mobile device with a vehicle of Ochi with additional user authentication of Terashima with payment processing of Davis because payment processing improves registering a mobile device with a vehicle by enhancing use case scenarios to commercial vehicles, see Davis para. 2, 33.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692