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 / Arguments
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b):
Applicant’s amendment cancelling the claim has rendered the rejection moot. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 102 / 103:
Applicant’s amendment (“in association with a time of occurrence of the use relation”) is considered to have overcome the applied rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Coker (US 2023/0206234 A1).
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement where it recites issuing time limit certificates “without requiring any prior contract or reservation.” While [0011] of the instant specification does describe the invention as being drawn to solving cases where a vehicle is used without involving a contract or reservation, the instant specification does not describe issuing certificates for the broad scope of “without requiring any prior contract or reservation” as claimed. For instance, in the case of having a driver’s license or making a verbal agreement to allow another person into your car (or to leave keys with a third party for transfer). Instead, the instant specification describes “spontaneously generating” the certificates as in [0021] and [0177]-[0178] (e.g., “may be generated in response to an issuance request from the first target or may be spontaneously generated”). In short, “spontaneously generating” a certificate does not support “issuing” certificates, let alone “issuing” certificates without requiring [X] for any or all X.
Independent claim 15 recites similar claim language, and it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected.
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 2-20 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. Independent claim 2 recites issuing time limit certificates “without requiring any prior contract or reservation,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how to interpret the scope of “requiring” and “any prior contract or reservation.” For instance, whether “requiring” extends to extra-solution activity comprising regulatory requirements (e.g., a driver’s license) or account registration for identification purposes (e.g., the first and second claimed identifiers). It is likewise unclear whether the scope of the claim extends to extra-solution contracts and reservations (e.g., a verbal agreement to hand over keys to allow entry into a rented car). In the same way, it is unclear how to interpret “prior” because it is not written in relation to anything (i.e., what is it prior to?). The current usage of “prior” appears to define an unbounded window of time before an undefined point in time.
Claim 2 further recites “according to a use relation actually occurring,” which renders it indefinite because it is not clear how to interpret “actually.” Specifically, how to interpret “actually occurring” as opposed to “occurring.”
As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Independent claim 15 recites similar claim language, and it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 15 is further indefinite in view of “receiving, from a first server, a first time limit certificate issued without requiring any prior contract or reservation and in relation to a first identifier of a first target, the first time limit certificate being configured to expire when an expiration date elapses; receiving, from a second server, a second time limit certificate issued without requiring any prior contract or reservation and in relation to a second identifier of a second target, the second time limit certificate being configured to expire when the expiration date elapses” because it is not clear how “without requiring any prior contract or reservation” affects the scope of the receiving step performed by the management server. In the claim, the management server merely receives information (certificates), which is a step that has no insight into the requirements of generating or issuance of certificates. It is the components that would issue the certificates based on some requirement that would be affected by the negative “without requiring…” limitation, which are outside of the claim scope drawn to a method executed by the management server.
The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected.
Since it is not clear how to interpret “without requiring any prior contract or reservation” and “actually,” silence with respect to, or disclosing optionally requiring, prior contracts or reservations will be considered as teaching issuing “without requiring”.
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.
Claim(s) 2-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0138747 A1) in view of Coker (US 2023/0206234 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses: A management system comprising:
a first server (owner and owner terminal as in [0053] of Kim);
a second server (lessee and lessee terminal as in [0087] of Kim); and
a management server (time slot-based shared resource transaction system as in FIG. 1 and [0024] of Kim), wherein the first server is configured to:
without requiring any prior contract or reservation, issue a first time limit certificate in relation to a first identifier (e.g., owner profile as in [0055] of Kim; profiles contain unique identifiers as in [0022] and [0064] of Kim) of a first target; and
Refer to at least [0015] and [0075] of Kim with respect to generating and issuing an owner certificate.
notify the issued first time limit certificate to the management server,
Refer to at least [0015], [0024], and [0076]-[0078] of Kim with respect to the owner disclosing the owner certificate to the shared resource transaction system. The certificate is associated with a time slot and a sharing period of time (e.g., [0017] of Kim).
the second server is configured to:
without requiring any prior contract or reservation, issue a second time limit certificate in relation to a second identifier (e.g., lessee profile as in [0061] of Kim; profiles contain unique identifiers as in [0022] and [0064] of Kim) of a second target; and
Refer to at least [0015], [0026]-[0029] and [0082] of Kim with respect to generating and issuing a time slot-based lessee certificate.
notify the issued second time limit certificate to the management server,
Refer to at least [0031] and [0086] of Kim with respect to the lessee disclosing the lessee certificate to the shared resource transaction system. The certificate is associated with a time slot and a sharing period of time as in [0017] and [0028]-[0029] of Kim.
the management server is configured to:
according to a use relation actually occurring between the first target and the second target, receive a first certificate corresponding to the first time limit certificate and a second certificate corresponding to the second time limit certificate from at least a first terminal of the first target and a second terminal of the second target;
Refer to at least the abstract, FIG. 2, and [0081]-[0087] of Kim with respect to the shared resource system obtaining owner and lessee certificates corresponding to the owner and the lessee (e.g., for the first time or for a renewed certificate—e.g., [0015], [0027], and [0081] of Kim.
collate the received first certificate and the received second certificate and the first time limit certificate and the second time limit certificate notified from the first server and the second server; and set a correspondence relation between the first identifier and the second identifier when the collation is successful, and
Refer to at least [0088]-[0089] of Kim with respect to comparing lessee and owner profiles respectively associated with the owner and lessee certificates for allowing use of a shared resource.
the first time limit certificate and the second time limit certificate are configured to expire when an expiration date elapses.
Refer to at least [0015] and [0026]-[0027] of Kim with respect to an expiration time associated with the certificates and sharing periods of time.
Kim does not specify: setting the correspondence relation further in association with a time of occurrence of the use relation. However, Kim in view of Coker discloses: setting the correspondence relation further in association with a time of occurrence of the use relation.
Refer to at least [0067] and [0073] of Coker with respect to a timestamp indicating when resources were shared between two users and their respective devices. Further refer to at least [0037] of Coker with respect to auditing and record keeping including the timestamp.
The teachings of Coker likewise concern resource sharing and authorization, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kim to further implement associating a resource sharing timestamp to allow for auditing as in the cited portions of Coker.
Regarding claim 3, Kim-Coker discloses: The management system according to claim 2, wherein the management server is further configured to release the correspondence relation according to reception of a release request from at least one of the first terminal and the second terminal or satisfaction of a predetermined release condition.
Refer to at least [0090] of Kim with respect to blocking access of the lessee in response to an expiration of the sharing period of time as a predetermined release condition.
Regarding claim 4, Kim-Coker discloses: The management system according to claim 2, wherein the receiving the first certificate and the second certificate from at least one of the first terminal and the second terminal includes receiving the first identifier and the second identifier from at least one of the first terminal and the second terminal.
Refer to at least [0028]-[0029] of Kim with respect to the certificates having included profiles; at least [0078] and [0086] of Kim with respect to sending respective profiles with the owner and lessee certificates.
Regarding claim 8, Kim-Coker discloses: The management system according to claim 2, wherein the receiving the first certificate and the second certificate from at least one of the first terminal and the second terminal is configured by receiving the first certificate and the second certificate from one of the first terminal and the second terminal.
Refer to at least [0015] and [0086] of Kim with respect to the lessee disclosing the owner certificate and the lessee certificate.
Regarding claim 9, Kim-Coker discloses: The management system according to claim 2, wherein one of the first target and the second target is a user, of the first terminal and the second terminal, one terminal corresponding to the user is a user terminal relating to the user,
Refer to at least [0004]-[0005] and [0075] of Kim with respect to resource sharing and user registration for sharing the resource.
another of the first target and the second target is an object to be used by the user, and of the first terminal and the second terminal, one terminal corresponding to the object to be used is a loading terminal loaded on the object to be used.
Refer to at least [0003] and [0019] of Kim with respect to the resource being, e.g., a vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9 above (i.e., the citations concerning a shared vehicle resource).
Regarding independent claim 15, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected for the same reasons (i.e., the citations).
Regarding claims 17-19, they are substantially similar to claims 5-7 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 9 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-Coker as applied to claims 2-10 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Penilla (US 9,365,188 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim-Coker does not specify: wherein the user terminal relating to the user is a proxy user terminal carried by a proxy user who represents the user. However, Kim-Coker in view of Penilla discloses: wherein the user terminal relating to the user is a proxy user terminal carried by a proxy user who represents the user.
Refer to at least Col. 4, Ll. 15-36, Col. 4, Ll. 66-Col. 5, Ll. 4, and Col. 39, Ll. 48-60 of Penilla with respect to a guest user such as a valet or mechanic being provided with access (e.g., via their mobile device using e-keys) on behalf of a user.
The teachings of Kim-Coker and Penilla both concern sharing resource access (e.g., vehicle access), and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kim-Coker to further implement guest access for the shared resource because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (e.g., taking a resource for servicing where the servicer needs access).
Regarding claim 12, Kim-Coker-Penilla discloses: The management system according to claim 11, wherein the use relation between the first target and the second target occurs through data communication between a target user terminal carried by the user and the proxy user terminal and data communication between the proxy user terminal and the loading terminal.
Refer to at least Col. 4, Ll. 66-Col. 5, Ll. 4, and Col. 39, Ll. 48-60 of Penilla with respect to the guest user using their mobile device for obtaining access to the resource.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 11 above.
Regarding claims 13-14, they are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 11-12 above (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale concerning a user and their mobile device providing e-keys to a guest device for negotiating resource access).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/V.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2432
