DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated August 13, 2025. In the Response, submitted on November 13, 2025, claims 1-3, and 6-8 were amended, claims 4 and 5 were cancelled, and claim 10 was added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 11 of the Response, regarding the previous objection to the Specification and rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended specification title and amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 11-14 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 14-16 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “The present claims recite a specific, unconventional ordered combination of the following elements. For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia, receiving a registration request and storing the user identification information and corresponding usage data; performing biometric based authentication for rental start and rental return procedures; registering start and return places in the usage information; and transmitting the first transmission information, which includes area information regarding an area to which the return place belongs, among the plurality of areas stored in the storage unit. This ordered combination of steps is not a mere ‘execution of an idea on a computer.’ But rather, claim 1 defines an unconventional processing flow not found in the cited references for providing relevant and useful information that is tailored to the user.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the above cited claim language merely reflects the abstract idea (of a certain method of organizing human activity), rather than confining the claim to a particular useful application (e.g., similar to BASCOM). Examiner further notes that “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination…As made clear by the courts, the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp… See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103… Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).)” See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More (emphasis added) Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding “an unconventional processing flow not found in the cited references” are not found persuasive.
On Page 16 of the Response, in analogizing the claims to Wiesner v. Google, Applicant argues “Claim 1 does not merely recite the solution as an outcome, but rather recites the specific processes that provide the solution. Thus, as with Weisner, claim 1 is not simply ‘broadly and generically claim[ing]’ the solution to the problem, but rather detailing a process performed by a server, through interactions with a user terminal and a plurality of informational terminals, for providing relevant information to a user after concluding a rental of a mobile body. As such, the features recited in claim 1 create a new functionality that improves the capability of the computer. Therefore, claim 1 recites ‘unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application,’ and provides a ‘non-conventional’ technical solution that amounts to significantly more than any abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that in Weisner Claim 1 of the ‘905 Patent uses a “physical location relationship” with a third-party “reference individual” to increase the priority of search results. Claim 1 describes how the physical relationship is established—the system searches the physical location histories of both a reference individual and the searching person to determine whether they have visited a common location (“second stationary vendor member”). The system then prioritizes search results that the reference individual has visited. The specification also emphasizes that conventional web searches have a problem of returning voluminous, generic, non-personalized search results. For example, the specification states that the current “process of searching the world wide web does not adequately take cognizance of the unique characteristics and tastes of the searching person.” The solution, according to the specification, is an “improved method of searching the world wide web . . . that makes use of digital histories.” Similarly, claim 1 of the ‘911 Patent recites searching the location history database for entries “in the location history of the individual member” conducting the geographically targeted search that fall within “the target geographic area.” The claimed solution addresses the problem of non-personalized search results described in the specification.
Here, nothing in the claims or specification describes a similar problem and solution to that of Weisner. Rather, the functions of the server and interactions with a user terminal and a plurality of informational terminals, for providing relevant information to a user after concluding a rental of a mobile body amount to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”. Nothing in the claims or specification recites “new functionality that improves the capability of the computer” as Applicant alleges. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites “the information terminal” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an information terminal”.
Claim 8 recites “the second information terminal” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a second information terminal”.
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 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, and 10 recite an apparatus comprising: at least one processor (i.e., a machine), claim 6-7 recites a system comprising: a terminal and processing apparatus (i.e., a machine), and claim 8 recites a method (i.e., a process). Therefore the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites series of functions/steps of: storing area information of a plurality of areas, the area information including information about stores or events in each respective area; receiving a registration request from a user; based on the registration request from the user, store user identification (ID) and usage information corresponding to the user ID; receiving, from a mobile body parking area, a request to start a rental procedure for renting a mobile body, the request including information about the mobile body to be rented, biometric information of the user, and a rental start time; perform authentication to identify a stored user ID, based on the biometric information of the user; based on the authentication of the biometric information, determine whether or not a start procedure for renting the mobile body has been completed; based on determining that the start procedure has been completed, register a start place of the mobile body in the usage information corresponding to the identified user ID; receiving, from a second mobile body parking area, a request to complete the rental procedure, the request including information about the mobile body to be returned, a second biometric information of the user, and a rental return time; performing authentication to identify a stored user ID stored in the storage unit, based on the second biometric information of the user; based on the authentication of the second biometric information, determining whether or not a return procedure for a mobile body rented by a user has been completed; based upon determining that the return procedure has been completed, registering a return place for the mobile body in the usage information corresponding to the identified user ID; and transmitting, to the user, first transmission information including at least a part of area information regarding an area to which the return place belongs among the stored plurality of areas.
Claims 6 and 8 recite a series of steps/functions of: storing area information of a plurality of areas, the area information including information about stores or events in each respective area; receiving a registration request from a user; based on the registration request from the user, store user identification (ID) and usage information corresponding to the user ID; receiving a request to start a rental procedure for renting a mobile body, the request including information about the mobile body to be rented, biometric information of the user, and a rental start time; perform authentication to identify a stored user ID, based on the biometric information of the user; based on the authentication of the biometric information, determine whether or not a start procedure for renting the mobile body has been completed; based on determining that the start procedure has been completed, register a start place of the mobile body in the usage information corresponding to the identified user ID; receiving a request to complete the rental procedure, the request including information about the mobile body to be returned, a second biometric information of the user, and a rental return time; performing authentication to identify a stored user ID stored in the storage unit, based on the second biometric information of the user; based on the authentication of the second biometric information, based upon the authentication of the second biometric information, determine whether or not a return procedure of the mobile body has been completed; based upon determining that the return procedure has been completed, register a return place for the mobile body in the usage information corresponding to the identified user ID; and transmitting, to the user, first transmission information including at least a part of area information regarding an area to which the return place belongs among the stored plurality of areas.
The claims as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 6 and 8, as a whole, amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”.
The claims recite the additional element of: (i) a storage unit (claims 1, 6, and 8); (ii) at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (claims 1 and 6); (iii) an information terminal and a second information terminal (claims 1, 6, and 8); (iv) a user terminal (claims 1, 6, and 8); and (v) information processing apparatus (claim 6).
The above additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements noted above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 10 recite details in the claim limitations which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, described above with respect to claim 1, these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-3 and 10 are ineligible.
Claim 7 recites executing biometric authentication, requesting, upon receiving the request to complete the rental procedure, biometric authentication based on the second biometric information; and determining that the return procedure has been completed upon acquiring a result of biometric authentication indicating that the biometric authentication has been successful, which narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a biometric authentication apparatus. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., biometric authentication). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., biometric authentication). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Prior Art
The claims are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art for the independent claims includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0274303 to Morishita (hereinafter “Morishita”). Morishita discloses an incentive received by a lessee differs depending on whether a place of return to which the lessee returns a power pack.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0114610 to Miyata (hereinafter “Miyata”). Miyata discloses provide an incentive to the user after ascertaining that the user has returned the mobile object to the charging station.
WO 2019237522 to Chen (hereinafter “Chen”). Chen discloses a vehicle return system.
WO 2020211885 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”). Zhang discloses returning glasses. The user initiates face recognition to the cloud server again through the display input unit. The cloud server recognizes the face and retrieves the corresponding data package. The storage unit is opened through the industrial computer, and after the user puts back the glasses, the storage status information of the storage unit will be updated.
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0225749 to Shoen et al. (hereinafter “Shoen”). Shoen discloses after the customer completes the steps of the return, the system prompts him or her, via the mobile device, to confirm the parking location of the returned vehicle so that the next customer can locate the vehicle for pick-up. (Para. 122-123, Figs.66-67) The vehicle return summary page 410 also displays a vehicle return button 416, which the customer can select to make final payment and to complete the return process. In response, as shown in the exemplary embodiments of FIGS. 66 and 67, the system 16 completes the return process by displaying a thank you page 420, which includes a message 422 to the customer that the vehicle has been successfully returned and the customer has been charged, as well as reminders 424 to the customer to lock the vehicle and place the keys (and documents) in the drop box at the return location. The system 16 then closes the rental contract (i.e., determine whether or not a return procedure for a mobile body by a user has been completed).)
Conclusion
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628