DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 8/21/2024 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Specification
The disclosure (Substitute Specification Clean) is objected to because of the following informalities:
para. [0008] unnecessary space between the paragraph number [0008] and text “In one aspect”
para. [0018], “includesverifying one or more of, ,” missing a space between words and there is a double comma; should read “includes verifying one or more of,”
para. [0037] and [0054] recite “pick up” should read “pickup”; patent specification should maintain consistent terminology for technical features to avoid ambiguity.
Appropriate correction is required
The amendment (Substitute Specification) filed on 8/21/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure (priority foreign AU application or WIPO application) is as follows:
Substitute Specification in para. [0008], [0024], [0025], “verifying, by one or more processors, the details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire by verifying the description regarding the condition of the equipment, including verifying that the image of the equipment is a recently captured image by comparing a date and time stamp of the image with a current date and time, and utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques to compare the description regarding the condition of the equipment with condition indicators obtained from the verified image of the equipment and wherein the condition indicators are determined by utilizing one or more visual comparison techniques to compare the verified image against one or more images of the equipment in a new state,” “verified equipment details in an equipment database including a data structure that identifies relationships between each piece of equipment and stored details relating to same,” “generates results retrieved using the data structure and filtered according to the pickup location of the piece of equipment;” “verified details regarding equipment”; “enable a selected insurance provider to access verified equipment details relating to equipment included in the borrowing or hiring arrangement and to enable the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to obtain”; These are step of adding specific data-sharing permissions or technical transactions that were not explicitly described. Adding a specific recipient (the insurer) for a specific data set (the verified details) expands the scope of the invention’s functionality beyond what was originally filed. Thus, they are all new matter that is not supported in the specification of the priority foreign AU application or WIPO application.
If Applicant wants to add subject matter to the original disclosure, the only option is to file a 111(a) as a Continuation-in-Part of the international application, see MPEP 1895.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “95” has been used to designate both “description (95)” (para. [0047], [0058], and [0061]) and “image (95)” (para. [0037]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims (filed Preliminary Amendment on 8/21/2024) 2-4, 7-11, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 11 recite “computer implemented” should read “computer-implemented”. Claim should maintain consistent terminology to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 9 should remove the space gap between “following:” and “the description”; claim should end with a period (“.”) instead the comma(“,”); remove the gap and hyphenation after “the equipment”.
Claim 15 should remove the space gap between “state;” and “store” in page 8 line 6.
Claim 16 recites “non-transient” should read “non-transitory”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite, “verifying, by one or more processors, the details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire by verifying the description regarding the condition of the equipment, comprising verifying that the image of the equipment is a recently captured image by comparing a date and time stamp of the image with a current date and time, and utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques to compare the description regarding the condition of the equipment with condition indicators obtained from the verified image of the equipment and wherein the condition indicators are determined by utilizing one or more visual comparison techniques to compare the verified image against one or more images of the equipment in a new state;” “a data structure that identifies relationships between each piece of equipment and stored details relating to same;” “retrieved using the data structure and filtered according to the pickup location of the piece of equipment residing;” “enable a selected insurance provider to access verified equipment details relating to equipment included in the borrowing or hiring arrangement and to enable the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to obtain insurance cover.” These limitations are new matter that is not supported in the originally filed specification of the priority foreign AU application or WIPO application. These are step of adding specific data-sharing permissions or technical transactions that were not explicitly described. Adding a specific recipient (the insurer) for a specific data set (the verified details) expands the scope of the invention’s functionality beyond what was originally filed.
If Applicant wants to add subject matter to the original disclosure, the only option is to file a 111(a) as a Continuation-in-Part of the international application.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 15 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 recite “the registered location” which lacks antecedent basis. Claims 15 and 16 recite “receiving details relating to … a location” however, claims 15 nor 16 does not introduce a step of registering the location or a registered location. For the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “the registered location” to be --a registered location--.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claim 15 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 16 is directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 15, and 16, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 15, and 16, is
receiving details relating to one or more potential borrowers or hirers of equipment, the details comprising at least a location of each of the one or more potential borrowers or hirers;
receiving details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire, the details comprising: information relating to the entity responsible for providing the piece of equipment for loan or hire comprising a pickup location of the piece of equipment, a description relating to the piece of equipment comprising a description regarding the condition of the piece of equipment, and an image of the piece of equipment;
verifying the details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire by verifying the description regarding the condition of the equipment, comprising verifying that the image of the equipment is a recently captured image by comparing a date and time stamp of the image with a current date and time, and utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques (note: interpret to be mathematical model) to compare the description regarding the condition of the equipment with condition indicators obtained from the verified image of the equipment and wherein the condition indicators are determined by utilizing one or more visual comparison techniques to compare the verified image against one or more images of the equipment in a new state;
storing the verified equipment details in an equipment database comprising a data structure that identifies relationships between each piece of equipment and stored details relating to same;
providing a search facility that enables a potential borrower or hirer to search the data structure for a piece of equipment using a key word search, the search facility utilizing a key word search algorithm incorporated with a geographical restriction such that any search request submitted by a potential borrower or hirer generates results retrieved using the data structure and filtered according to the pickup location of the piece of equipment residing within a predetermined vicinity of the location of the potential borrower or hirer; and
providing: the potential borrower or hirer to view the verified details regarding equipment selected by the potential borrower or hirer from the generated search results, the potential borrower or hirer to confirm their selection of the equipment to borrow or hire and thereby establish a borrowing or hiring arrangement with the entity responsible for providing the piece of equipment, and the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to access with one or more insurance providers to enable a selected insurance provider to access verified equipment details relating to equipment included in the borrowing or hiring arrangement and to enable the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to obtain insurance cover with respect to the borrowing or hiring arrangement.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of facilitating equipment rental.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (steps A, B, and D), analyzing the information (step C) and presenting information (steps E and F). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors for equipment rental service of commercial industry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements, the limitations above recite a process of collecting information of borrower, location, equipment available, description of condition; verifying the detail based on image/visual comparison; storing the details, and providing the information when request for the rental (borrow/hire) arrangement. As discussed in the applicant’s specification paragraph [0001], the claims closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing an equipment rental service, thus, claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “by one or more processors;” “utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques;” “utilize a data communications device;” “by one or more processors, an interactive interface that enables;” “data communication links;”
Claim 12: “system;” “by one or more processors;” “utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques;” “utilize a data communications device;” “by one or more processors, an interactive interface that enables;” “data communication links;”
Claim 15: “non-transient computer-readable medium comprising computer instruction code that, when executed on a computer, causes one or more computer processors of the computer to perform;” “system;” “by one or more processors;” “utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques;” “utilize a data communications device;” “by one or more processors, an interactive interface that enables;” “data communication links;”
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, verify, store, and provide information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0069]-[0075]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[F] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[F] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for facilitating equipment rental. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 2 further includes abstract step of communicating information by utilizing a central server and software application; Claim 3 further includes abstract descriptive information of the location of the potential borrower or hirer; Claim 4 further includes abstract step of determining location utilizing GPS, Wi-Fi, or Cell ID; Claim 5 further includes abstract information for the details of each piece of equipment; Claims 6-8 further include abstract information of the description relating to each piece of equipment; Claim 9 further includes abstract steps of verifying information of the description relation to the equipment and identifier; Claims 10-11 further include abstract information of the details relating to one or more potential borrowers or hirers of equipment; Claims 12-13 further include abstract step of conducting security analyses; Claim 14 further includes abstract step of presenting additional information; The additional abstract steps and abstract information of the dependent claims do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Leary et al. (US 20220172279 A1, hereinafter “O’Leary”), in view of Fort et al. (WO 2021163353 A1, hereinafter, “Fort”), and further in view of Koulis et al. (US 20210118044 A1, hereinafter, “Koulis”).
Claims 1, 15, and 16, O’Leary discloses a computer-implemented method, a system, and a non-transient computer-readable medium comprising computer instruction code that, when executed on a computer, causes one or more computer processors of the computer to perform steps facilitating the borrowing or hiring of equipment (para. [0001], a system and method for the rental of construction equipment. Para. [0068], computer program product, including any computer readable medium), comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors (para. [0068], processor), details relating to one or more potential borrowers or hirers of equipment, the details comprising at least a location of each of the one or more potential borrowers or hirers (para. [0052], [0055] and claim 13 discloses receiving user-inputted data, including construction equipment renter profile which includes the location/address and determining rental rates based on the location of construction equipment rental);
receiving, by one or more processors (para. [0068], processor), details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire, the details comprising: information relating to the entity responsible for providing the piece of equipment for loan or hire comprising a pickup location of the piece of equipment, a description relating to the piece of equipment comprising a description regarding the condition of the piece of equipment, and an image of the piece of equipment (Para. [0051], [0053], [0058] discloses a database of records 109 provided by equipment entities, including equipment specifications (description), pickup locations, and pictures (images) of the equipment);
storing, by one or more processors, the verified equipment details in an equipment database comprising a data structure that identifies relationships between each piece of equipment and stored details relating to same (para. [0049], [0051], discloses storing equipment records 109 in an accessible memory 107 that identifies relationships between the equipment, the provider, and the renter);
providing, by one or more processors, a search facility that enables a potential borrower or hirer to utilize a data communications device to search the data structure for a piece of equipment using a key word search, the search facility utilizing a key word search algorithm incorporated with a geographical restriction such that any search request submitted by a potential borrower or hirer generates results retrieved using the data structure and filtered according to the pickup location of the piece of equipment residing within a predetermined vicinity of the location of the potential borrower or hirer (para. [0058], discloses a search engine where a renter enters a search term (key word search) to retrieve a list of available equipment. In para. [0055] O’Leary discloses filtering the results based on the jurisdiction (vicinity) of the renter’s location to determine availability and transport cost); and
However, O’Leary fails to disclose:
comprising a description regarding the condition of the piece of equipment,
verifying, by one or more processors, the details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire by verifying the description regarding the condition of the equipment, comprising verifying that the image of the equipment is a recently captured image by comparing a date and time stamp of the image with a current date and time, and utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques to compare the description regarding the condition of the equipment with condition indicators obtained from the verified image of the equipment and wherein the condition indicators are determined by utilizing one or more visual comparison techniques to compare the verified image against one or more images of the equipment in a new state;
providing, by one or more processors, an interactive interface that enables:
the potential borrower or hirer to view the verified details regarding equipment selected by the potential borrower or hirer from the generated search results,
the potential borrower or hirer to confirm their selection of the equipment to borrow or hire and thereby establish a borrowing or hiring arrangement with the entity responsible for providing the piece of equipment, and
the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to access data communication links with one or more insurance providers to enable a selected insurance provider to access verified equipment details relating to equipment included in the borrowing or hiring arrangement and to enable the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to obtain insurance cover with respect to the borrowing or hiring arrangement.
Nonetheless, Fort is in the similar field of rental system and method, which specifically teaches:
comprising a description regarding the condition of the piece of equipment (Fort: para, [0041] teaches receiving description regarding the condition to identify pre-existing damage),
verifying, by one or more processors, the details regarding each piece of equipment available for loan or hire by verifying the description regarding the condition of the equipment, comprising verifying that the image of the equipment is a recently captured image by comparing a date and time stamp of the image with a current date and time, and utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques to compare the description regarding the condition of the equipment with condition indicators obtained from the verified image of the equipment and wherein the condition indicators are determined by utilizing one or more visual comparison techniques to compare the verified image against one or more images of the equipment in a new state (Claim 1, [0073], [0087], [0089], [0091], teaches capturing images during the pickup/return process and storing a rental timestamp in memory. In para. [0102] further teaches the system uses these timestamps to determine the rental time);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of O’Leary for the equipment rental and geographical filtering to combine with the feature of AI-driven image verification of Fort to provide a more efficient self-service equipment rental with the prevention of users from uploading old photos to hide new damage of the equipment in exchange.
However, the combination of O’Leary and Fort fail to teach:
providing, by one or more processors, an interactive interface that enables:
the potential borrower or hirer to view the verified details regarding equipment selected by the potential borrower or hirer from the generated search results,
the potential borrower or hirer to confirm their selection of the equipment to borrow or hire and thereby establish a borrowing or hiring arrangement with the entity responsible for providing the piece of equipment, and
the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to access data communication links with one or more insurance providers to enable a selected insurance provider to access verified equipment details relating to equipment included in the borrowing or hiring arrangement and to enable the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to obtain insurance cover with respect to the borrowing or hiring arrangement.
Koulis is in the similar field of rental system, which specifically teaches,
providing, by one or more processors, an interactive interface that enables: the potential borrower or hirer to view the verified details regarding equipment selected by the potential borrower or hirer from the generated search results, the potential borrower or hirer to confirm their selection of the equipment to borrow or hire and thereby establish a borrowing or hiring arrangement with the entity responsible for providing the piece of equipment (Claim 1 and para. [0083], [0086], teaches a web portal interface 104 that allows borrower to view extracts of items, select item, and receive notification of acceptance to establish the arrangement), and
the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to access data communication links with one or more insurance providers to enable a selected insurance provider to access verified equipment details relating to equipment included in the borrowing or hiring arrangement and to enable the potential borrower or hirer and/or the entity responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire to obtain insurance cover with respect to the borrowing or hiring arrangement (para. [0122] teaches the system is configured to integrate data from a third party insurance provider. In para. [0069] further teaches the payment process includes fees for insurance of the item).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the equipment rental system and method of O’Leary to include the feature of insurance integration as taught by Koulis for the motivation of providing economic and technical benefit to the insurance provider and the equipment owner, for the system to provide insurance premium that can be dynamically adjusted based on the actual verified state of the asset.
Claim 2, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1. O’Leary further discloses,
wherein the method further comprises utilizing a central server to communicate with data communication devices associated with each of the potential borrower or hirer and each of the entities responsible for providing the equipment for loan or hire (para. [0049]-[0052], O’Leary discloses server 105 that acts as a central hub for the rental. The plurality of construction equipment renters 103 each have a computing device communicates with central server 105 via communication link such as the internet).
However, O’Leary does not expressly teach,
whereby each device is operable to execute a software application that enables communication with the central server.
Nonetheless, Fort similar in the field, teaches whereby each device is operable to execute a software application that enables communication with the central server (para. [0012] and [0024] teaches app (software application) for the rental process via mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the rental system and method of O’Leary to include the feature of software application for communication as taught by Fort for the motivation of provide more efficient system with share system with more streamlined user experience in mobile device environment in communication.
Claim 3, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Fort further teaches
wherein the location of the potential borrower or hirer is a registered address of the potential borrower or hirer, a current location of the potential borrower or hirer, or a preferred address of the potential borrower or hirer (Claims 9, 19 and para. [0026] teaches “user may be verified using the geolocation of their mobile device 112” teaches current location of the potential borrower or hirer). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the rental system and method of O’Leary to include the feature of geolocation via mobile device as taught by Fort for the motivation of provide more efficient system with share system with more streamlined user experience in mobile device environment.
Claim 4, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 3. Fort further teaches
wherein the current location of the potential borrower or hirer is determined in substantially realtime by utilizing one or more of: GPS functionality, Wi-Fi functionality, Cell ID, and/or A-GPS (Assisted GPS) functionality (Claim 9, and para. [0027] teaches geolocation via mobile device which is GPS functionality).
Claim 5, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1. O’Leary further discloses storing equipment specifications (para. [0051[). However, O’Leary does not expressly teach,
wherein the details regarding each piece of equipment further comprises one or more of: an identifier associated with the equipment, and a make and/or model of the equipment.
However, Fort similar in the field, teaches wherein the details regarding each piece of equipment further comprises one or more of: an identifier associated with the equipment, and a make and/or model of the equipment (para. [0032] teaches the equipment details stored in the database include a “serial number, an attached QR code, product name or model number.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention as a standard database practice for equipment information to include unique identifier such as serial number and make/model information to track inventory.
Claim 6, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1. O’Leary further discloses,
wherein the description relating to each piece of equipment further comprises one or more of: a hiring rate set by the user responsible for providing the equipment for hire, comprising a different hiring rate based on different periods of time for which the equipment will be hired (O’Leary para. [0053], [0055] discloses the description includes a pricing schedule with different rates based on time (e.g., “hourly, daily, weekly rates, weekend rates”)), and penalty costs applicable in respect of failure to return equipment either in acceptable condition or within terms of the borrowing or hiring arrangement (Fort: para. [0094], teaches notifying the customer that they will be charged for any damage to the item or failure to return it properly, which includes penalty clauses for breach of contract. This is a well-known and standard business practice in the rental industry).
Claim 7, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 6. O’Leary further discloses,
wherein the piece of equipment is categorized according to its attributes and/or use and the hiring rate is based upon the categorization of the equipment (para. [0051], [0053] discloses that the piece of equipment is categorized according to its attributes (construction equipment category) and the pricing schedule is based upon the category).
Claim 8, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 7. O’Leary further discloses,
wherein the use of a piece of equipment is categorized as either residential or commercial, and different hiring rates apply in respect of commercial and residential arrangements based on the different uses of the equipment (O’Leary para. [0051], [0053] discloses categorizing equipment. While the words “residential” or “commercial” are not explicitly used, however categorizing equipment by its intended use (heavy industry vs light home use) and charging different rates accordingly is a fundamental economic practice and a routine business design choice, which does not produce a new or unexpected technical result).
Claim 9, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 5. Fort further teaches
wherein verifying, by one or more processors, details regarding each piece of equipment further comprises verifying one or more of the following: the description relating to the equipment by comparing the description against a database of existing equipment to determine any errors or inaccuracies with respect to the description, or the identifier associated with the equipment by comparing the identifier with a database of registered serial numbers associated with a particular make and/or model of the equipment (para. [0008], [0032] teaches the system reads a serial number or QR code and compares to the database to confirm the correct item is placed in or removed from the locker system. It has been well-known and obvious in the field of standard data validation to compare input identifier against a database of registered serial number numbers to detect errors or fraud).
Claim 10, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1. O’Leary further discloses, requested at the time the borrower or hirer establishes a user account (para. [0054], “register with the system 100 by creating a profile for themselves”).
Koulis teaches wherein the details relating to one or more potential borrowers or hirers of equipment comprises a minimum amount of identification requested at the time the borrower or hirer establishes a user account (Para. [0073] teaches user verification and security check. In para. [0116], “a renter or lender may require uploading or submitting a form of suitable identification (ID). Suitable ID may comprise at least one of a name and a date of birth. A form of suitable ID may be at least one of; a social security number, a tax file number, a government issue ID, government ID, or other type of ID” “standard of ID verification may be compliant with ‘Know Your Customer’ regulation”. This is requiring a minimum amount of identification requested at the time the borrower or hirer establishes a user account).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the rental system and method of O’Leary to include the feature of identification check as taught by Koulis for the motivation of preventing fraudulent users accessing the system.
Claim 11, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Koulis teaches
wherein the minimum amount of identification comprises a driver's license and/or passport of the borrower or hirer (para. [0116], “driver license” and “passport”). The rationale to combine in claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Claim 12, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Koulis teaches
conducting, by one or more processors, one or more security analyses regarding each potential borrower or hirer, comprising, an analysis at the time the borrower or hirer seeks to establish the user account (para. [0073] teaches conducting user verification and security check) and at one or more intervals thereafter (Fort para. [0052] teaches system may review images periodically to confirm conditions and verify the suitability of the transaction). The rationale to combine in claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Claim 13, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 12. Koulis teaches
wherein the security analyses comprise checking, by one or more processors, the existence of a police record associated with the potential borrower or hirer (para. [0116] teaches identification verification is compliant with anti-money laundering regulation and involves verifying a user against a third-party database, para. [0029]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that a security analysis for an equipment rental platform would include checking third-party database such as police or criminal record database as standard industry practice to mitigate the risk of money laundering or theft).
Claim 15, the combination of O’Leary, Fort, and Koulis make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1. O’Leary further discloses,
wherein the interactive interface further enables one or more of:
a calendar functionality that allows potential borrowers or hirers to select available dates for the borrowing or hiring of a particular piece of equipment (para. [0051] discloses rental availability schedule and para. [0060] an editable compact booking form where a user selects dates for the hiring period),
a payment gateway that allows potential hirers to make a payment in relation to hiring a selected equipment for a selected period of time (Fort, para. [0075]),
provision of instructional material comprising documents and media to assist the borrower or hirer regarding correct operation of the piece of equipment (Fort, para. [0068]), or
a communication gateway that allows for communication between users seeking to establish a borrowing or hiring arrangement (Fort, para. [0075], [0084]).
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Y. Guo and Z. Xu, "Risk Management of Car Rental Industry in China," 2007 International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, Chengdu, China, 2007, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/ICSSSM.2007.4280161.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights