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 .
Response to Amendment
Preliminary Amendment filed 04/15/2025 has been entered. Claim 23 is cancelled; claim 25 is new. Claims 1-22, 24, and 25 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 does not end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,106,148. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare instant claim 1 with patented claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 12,106,148
App. No. 18/814,999
1. A computer server system comprising:
1. A computer server system comprising:
a communications module;
a communications module;
a processor coupled with the communications module; and
a processor coupled with the communications module; and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
provide scheduled access to different node classes of a shared resource, where each node class includes a number of nodes;
provide scheduled access to different node classes of a shared resource, where each node class includes a number of nodes;
obtain an indication of scheduled access to a first node class of the shared resource;
prior to providing the access to the first node class, determine that a second node class of the shared resource is available; and
determine that a second node class of the shared resource is available in place of scheduled access to a first node class; and
schedule access to the second node class of the shared resource in place of the scheduled access to the first node class of the shared resource.
schedule access to the second node class of the shared resource in place of the scheduled access to the first node class of the shared resource.
Instant claims 13 and 24 are parallel in scope to instant claim 1, and similarly anticipated by patented claims 11 and 20, respectively. Instant claims 2-12 and 14-22 are similarly anticipated by patented claims 2-10 and 12-19.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,106,148 in view of Thubert et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0379782).
Regarding claim 25, claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,106,148 anticipate instant claims 1-22 and 24 as detailed above. The claims of U.S. Pat. 12,106,148 do not anticipate “The server computer system of claim 9, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: engage an artificial intelligence component to generate the load projection for the shared resource” as recited in instant claim 25.
Thubert disclosed using machine learning, i.e., an artificial intelligence component, to identify projected loads, i.e., generate load projections, for network nodes, i.e., shared resources (¶[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify U.S. Pat. 12,106,148 to engage an artificial intelligence component to generate the load projection for the shared resource as claimed, because doing so would have been use of known technique (i.e., network load projection using artificial intelligence) to improve similar devices/methods/products (i.e., the network/resources of the instant claims) in the same way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “wherein each node class includes a number of nodes”, whereas claim 1 previously recites “where each node class includes a number of nodes” (line 6). The limitation in claim 12 is therefore redundant and does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 is directed to a method comprising the steps of providing scheduled access to a first class of shared resources, determining an available second class of shared resources, and scheduling access to the second class in place of the scheduled access to the first class. These claimed steps recite a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of computer implementation does not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and is merely recitation of generic computer components generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of computer implementation is conventional, extra-solution activity. Claims 1 and 24 are parallel in scope to claim 13, further reciting computing elements (e.g., communications module, processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, etc.), which similarly do not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 2-12, 14-22, and 25 are rejected as depending from claims 1, 13, and 24, respectively, and under the same rationale.
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 1-6, 9, 10, 12-18, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgal et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0280700), hereinafter Morgal.
Regarding claim 1, Morgal disclosed a computer server system comprising:
a communications module (network interface, ¶[0127]);
a processor coupled with the communications module (processor, ¶[0120]); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions (memory, ¶[0120]; instructions, ¶[0123]) which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
provide scheduled access to different node classes of a shared resource, where each node class includes a number of nodes (reserving/scheduling shared vehicle rental, i.e., scheduled access of a shared resource, including vehicles of varying charge levels, i.e., node classes, ¶[0012], [0090]);
determine that a second node class of the shared resource is available in place of scheduled access to a first node class (determining whether a second vehicle with less charge, i.e., second node class, has enough stored energy to meet a reservation commitment of a previously assigned first vehicle, i.e., first node class, ¶[0012], [0090]); and
schedule access to the second node class of the shared resource in place of the scheduled access to the first node class of the shared resource (reassigning the reservation, i.e., scheduling access in place of the scheduled access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 2, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein the scheduled access to the first node class identifies a time window. (providing time-limited rentals with an agreed upon time of day, i.e., time window, ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein determining that the second node class is available includes determining that a node within the second node class is available within the time window (determining whether a second vehicle with less charge, i.e., second node class, has enough stored energy to meet a reservation commitment, i.e., time window, of a previously assigned first vehicle, i.e., first node class, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
determine that a current time has reached the time window (tracking current time of day and related reservation information, ¶[0071]); and
provide access to the node within the second node class (reassigning the reservation, i.e., scheduling access in place of the scheduled access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 5, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein when scheduling access to the second node class, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
send, via the communications module and to a third-party server associated with a provider of the shared resource, a request to schedule the access to the second node class (reassigning the reservation, i.e., requesting to schedule the access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]; storing vehicle registration schedule in a central server, i.e., third party server, ¶[0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein the request to schedule the access to the second node class is sent to the third-party server without notifying a requesting party that scheduled the access to the first node class of the shared resource (reassigning the reservation, i.e., requesting to schedule the access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090], does not disclose notification of requesting user; storing vehicle registration schedule in a central server, i.e., server, ¶[0060]; reserving using third party reservation web site, i.e., third-party server, ¶[0117]).
Regarding claim 9, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein when determining that the second node class of the shared resource is available, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
identify, based on a load projection for the shared resource, that the second node class of the shared resource is available (determining whether second vehicle has enough stored energy to meet the reservation commitment previously assigned to the first vehicle, ¶[0090]).
Regarding claim 10, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
consult a database to determine that the second node class is to be scheduled in place of the first node class (server including a database, ¶[0021], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Morgal disclosed the server computer system wherein each node class includes a number of nodes (first vehicle, i.e., a node in a first node class, and second vehicle with less charge, i.e., node in a second node class, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 13, Morgal disclosed a computer-implemented method comprising:
providing scheduled access to different node classes of a shared resource, where each node class includes a number of nodes (reserving/scheduling shared vehicle rental, i.e., scheduled access of a shared resource, including vehicles of varying charge levels, i.e., node classes, ¶[0012], [0090]);
determining that a second node class of the shared resource is available in place of scheduled access to a first node class (determining whether a second vehicle with less charge, i.e., second node class, has enough stored energy to meet a reservation commitment of a previously assigned first vehicle, i.e., first node class, ¶[0012], [0090]); and
scheduling access to the second node class of the shared resource in place of the scheduled access to the first node class of the shared resource (reassigning the reservation, i.e., scheduling access in place of the scheduled access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 14, Morgal disclosed the method wherein the scheduled access to the first node class identifies a time window (providing time-limited rentals with an agreed upon time of day, i.e., time window, ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Morgal disclosed the method wherein determining that the second node class is available includes determining that a node within the second node class is available within the time window (determining whether a second vehicle with less charge, i.e., second node class, has enough stored energy to meet a reservation commitment, i.e., time window, of a previously assigned first vehicle, i.e., first node class, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 16, Morgal disclosed the method further comprising:
determining that a current time has reached the time window (tracking current time of day and related reservation information, ¶[0071]); and
providing access to the node within the second node class (reassigning the reservation, i.e., scheduling access in place of the scheduled access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Regarding claim 17, Morgal disclosed the method wherein when scheduling access to the second node class, the method further comprises:
sending, via a communications module and to a third-party server associated with a provider of the shared resource, a request to schedule the access to the second node class (reassigning the reservation, i.e., requesting to schedule the access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]; storing vehicle registration schedule in a central server, i.e., third party server, ¶[0060]).
Regarding claim 18, Morgal disclosed the method wherein the request to schedule the access to the second node class is sent to the third-party server without notifying a requesting party that scheduled the access to the first node class of the shared resource (reassigning the reservation, i.e., requesting to schedule the access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090], does not disclose notification of requesting user; storing vehicle registration schedule in a central server, i.e., server, ¶[0060]; reserving using third party reservation web site, i.e., third-party server, ¶[0117]).
Regarding claim 21, Morgal disclosed the method wherein when determining that the second node class of the shared resource is available, the method further comprises:
identifying, based on a load projection for the shared resource, that the second node class of the shared resource is available (determining whether second vehicle has enough stored energy to meet the reservation commitment previously assigned to the first vehicle, ¶[0090]).
Regarding claim 24, Morgal disclosed a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to:
provide scheduled access to different node classes of a shared resource, where each node class includes a number of nodes (reserving/scheduling shared vehicle rental, i.e., scheduled access of a shared resource, including vehicles of varying charge levels, i.e., node classes, ¶[0012], [0090]);
determine that a second node class of the shared resource is available in place of scheduled access to a first node class (determining whether a second vehicle with less charge, i.e., second node class, has enough stored energy to meet a reservation commitment of a previously assigned first vehicle, i.e., first node class, ¶[0012], [0090]); and
schedule access to the second node class of the shared resource in place of the scheduled access to the first node class of the shared resource (reassigning the reservation, i.e., scheduling access in place of the scheduled access, to the second vehicle, ¶[0012], [0090]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgal (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0280700) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Westhues et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,710,185), hereinafter Westhues.
Regarding claim 8, Morgal disclosed the server computer system as detailed above. Morgal did not disclose the system wherein when scheduling access to the second node class, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
engage an application programming interface associated with a provider of the shared resource to schedule the access to the second node class.
Westhues disclosed using a rental API, i.e., engaging an application programming interface, to book a rental reservation for, i.e., schedule access to, an available vehicle of an available vehicle class, i.e., shared resource/node class (col. 7, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morgal to engage an application programming interface associated with a provider of the shared resource to schedule the access to the second node class as claimed, because doing so would have been use of known technique (i.e., API for scheduling rental of vehicles) to improve similar devices/methods/products (i.e., the vehicle rental scheduling system of Morgal) in the same way.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgal (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0280700) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Belanger et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2005/0144048), hereinafter Belanger.
Regarding claim 11, Morgal disclosed the server computer system as detailed above. Morgal did not disclose the system wherein the second node class is an upgrade from the first node class.
Belanger disclosed a vehicle rental booking system, including revising reservation transactions and upgrading vehicles to a larger class (¶[0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morgal wherein the second node class is an upgrade from the first node class as claimed, because doing so would have been use of known technique (i.e., upgrading a scheduled vehicle reservation) to improve similar devices/methods/products (i.e., the vehicle rental scheduling system of Morgal) in the same way.
Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11 above.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgal (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0280700) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Munoz et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0110323), hereinafter Munoz.
Regarding claim 25, Morgal disclosed the server computer system as detailed above. Morgal did not disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
engage an artificial intelligence component to generate the load projection for the shared resource.
Munoz disclosed using machine learning, i.e., an artificial intelligence component, to schedule a vehicle (¶[0133]), including estimating, e.g., fuel/battery consumption, i.e., generating load projection, (¶[0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morgal to engage an artificial intelligence component to generate the load projection for the shared resource as claimed, because doing so would have made optimized decisions and commands for vehicles and improved overall fuel/charge economy of the system (¶[0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shafiee et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0159499) disclosed determining alternative resources to schedule for fulfilling a task.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441