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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 6/3/2026. Claim(s) 1-22, 24-27 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Drawing objections of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Specification objections of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim objections of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
No claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments, pg(s). 19, in regards to 35 USC 101 of the most recent Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, pg(s). 19, that the amended claim language “clearly recites elements that, when considered in combination, are not directed to an abstract idea, at least because the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
However, such a statement amounts to no more than generally alleging that the claims should not be rejected under 35 USC 101. Applicant has not presented arguments pointing out specific reasons believed to render the claims, including newly presented claims, eligible under 35 USC 101. As stated in the 35 USC 101 section of this Office action, the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, pg(s). 20-22, with respect to the prior art rejections to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. However, at least one argument remains relevant to the current rejection.
Applicant asserts, pg(s) 21, “Cooper merely discloses measurement and comparison of parameters during operation, that is, after delivery of the vehicle to the user. Cooper uses parameters to determine when maintenance events during the operation are needed…Cooper clearly does not teach or suggest, inter alia, "wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user," as recited by amended claim 1.”
The examiner disagrees with this assertion. As stated in the 35 USC 102 section of this Office action, Cooper teaches performing a method after installation of a vehicle body and a power source before delivery of the vehicle to a user (Fig. 1, [0086-0088, 0104-0105]), where the method includes measuring a measurement value at a first time. Specifically, the method of Cooper is performed when the power source drives a wheel of the vehicle (i.e., when “the individual that is riding the light electric vehicle” [0105] is operating the vehicle such that the power source is driving the wheel). Further, the method of Cooper is performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user (i.e., before the vehicle is delivered “to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105]). Thus, Cooper discloses "wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user," as recited by amended claim 1.
Applicant further asserts, pg(s) 21-22, that claims 3, 14, and 15 contain certain limitations that are not disclosed by the prior art.
However, such statements amount to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent dependent claim x and nakedly asserting that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support is afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F,2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See MPEP 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.Sti 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion to what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prime fade case of obviousness.'').
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 1-18, 20-21, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-17, 20, 27, the claims recite a “A management method” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
A management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user and comprising:
a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source, a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount, or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source; and
a comparison step of comparing, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value,
wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “comparison step...” in the contexts of this claim encompass forming a judgement regarding how a measured value compares to a threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user and comprising:
a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source, a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount, or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source; and
a comparison step of comparing, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value,
wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source…”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies]. The limitation amounts to mere data gathering (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the “a comparison step...”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user” and “the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user” of the preamble, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, defining the timing of when the “management method” is preformed and when the “measurement step” occurs merely indicates a field of use and do/does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Additional elements that merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not “meaningfully limit” the claim and thus do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”.
Moreover, limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control an aircraft engine), or as stated the preamble (“for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body”) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad. See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (“Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “for a vehicle…”, “the method being performed before delivery..”, and “the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body…and before delivery…to the user” is/are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to “significantly more”, as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation(s) of “a measurement step…” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that is the measurement step is anything other than using well-known sensors to obtain vehicle data [0090, 0129]. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 24, the claim(s) recite(s) “An information processing device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 24 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “a processor”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 18, 21, the claims recite a “A management method” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
A management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user and comprising:
a generation step of generating, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others; and
an acquisition step of acquiring, in a tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed included in the confirmation information,
wherein the ninth time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “method of organizing human activity” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, the “generation step...” and the “acquisition step…” in the contexts of this claim encompass a social activity of generating information to provide to a person and in response, acquiring an input from the person. Accordingly, the claim recites at least two abstract idea(s).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user and comprising:
a generation step of generating, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others; and
an acquisition step of acquiring, in tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed included in the confirmation information,
wherein the ninth time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “wherein the ninth time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user” and “the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user” of the preamble, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, defining the timing of when the “management method” is preformed and when the “generation step” occurs merely indicates a field of use and do/does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Additional elements that merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not “meaningfully limit” the claim and thus do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”.
Moreover, limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control an aircraft engine), or as stated the preamble (“for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body”) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad. See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (“Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 18 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “for a vehicle…”, “the method being performed before delivery...”, and “the ninth time period is after the installation of the vehicle body…and before delivery…to the user” is/are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to “significantly more”, as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 25, the claim(s) recite(s) “An information processing device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 25 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 18. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 18. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 18. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “a processor”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “generate, in a ninth time period, information…” and “acquire, in a tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information…”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment by defining the timing of when the “generate” and “acquire” steps occur and do/does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17, 20-21, 27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, 18, 20-21, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (US 20210125421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper teaches A management method for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user (see “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event”, [0104]) comprising:
a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source (“the light electric vehicle management system 205 may also receive light electric vehicle information 245 from the light electric vehicle 235 over the network 230. The light electric vehicle information 245 may include information about one or more operating parameters of the light electric vehicle 235. In some examples, the light electric vehicle information 245 may be collected by one or more sensors associated with the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0086], “the light electric vehicle 235 may have a sensor that reads the tire pressure of the light electric vehicle 235, a sensor that detects an amount of torque that is being applied to one or more pedals of the light electric vehicle 235, a sensor that detect an amount of traction provided by the tires of the light electric vehicle 235, and so on.”, [0087]), a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount (“the information from the one or more sensors may be used to determine performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235. The performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235 may include…how quickly the light electric vehicle 235 can accelerate,… balance characteristics (e.g., whether the alignment of the tires and/or spokes of the wheel(s) of the light electric vehicle 235 cause the light electric vehicle 235 to be wobbly) of the light electric vehicle 235, an amount of power provided by an electric assist motor of the light electric vehicle 235, and so on.”, [0087]), or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source (“the information from the one or more sensors may be used to determine performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235. The performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235 may include a rechargeable battery usage rate of the light electric vehicle 235”, [0087]); and
a comparison step of comparing, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value (“The information collected by the sensors may be used to determine whether the light electric vehicle 235 is operating below an operation threshold and/or whether various components of the light electric vehicle 235 are operating as expected.”, [0086], “When this information is received by the light electric vehicle management system 205 (e.g., via an API and/or over the network 230), the light electric vehicle management system 205 may determine, using the received information, whether the light electric vehicle 235 is experiencing a maintenance event.”, [0088]),
wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user (“when the maintenance event is detected, the maintenance system 215 may interact with the rider profile system 210 to determine the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event. Once those individuals have been identified, the maintenance system 215 and/or rider profile system 210 may determine which of those individuals are at or near to the current location of the light electric vehicle 235 or the anticipated destination of the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0104], “the individual that is riding the light electric vehicle may be provided a notification (e.g., on her computing device 255 and/or on a display of the light electric vehicle 235) and/or an incentive to take the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual so the identified individual can perform the requested action 280.”, [0105], (“the maintenance system 215 may determine, based on rider profile information 250, that the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235 has not been trained to fix or otherwise address the detected maintenance event.”, [0101], where the time that “the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235” [0101] and the “determin[ing] the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] and “tak[ing] the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105] occur corresponds to Applicant’s “first time period” which occurs “after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source”, with the installed vehicle body and power source seen in Fig. 1, “and before delivery of the vehicle to the user”, where the “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] corresponds to Applicant’s “user”).
Regarding claim 2, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a first generation step of generating, in a third time period after the second time period, display information for displaying a comparison result in the comparison step or a determination result based on the comparison result in the comparison step on a terminal used by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle (“the individual that is riding the light electric vehicle may be provided a notification (e.g., on her computing device 255 and/or on a display of the light electric vehicle 235) and/or an incentive to take the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual so the identified individual can perform the requested action 280.”, [0105], “The control system of the electric scooter 110 and/or the electric bicycle 130 manages the power output to the one or motors, provides a visual indication as to a charge level of the rechargeable battery in the battery holster 120, and/or communicates directly (e.g., via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., via one or more remote computing devices, one or more networks, the Internet, etc.) with the computing device of the user and/or with the network service.”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, further comprising a second generation step of generating, in a fourth time period before the first time period, information for displaying, on the terminal, confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by the entity of manufacturing or others with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source (“The control system of the electric scooter 110 and/or the electric bicycle 130 manages the power output to the one or motors, provides a visual indication as to a charge level of the rechargeable battery in the battery holster 120, and/or communicates directly (e.g., via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., via one or more remote computing devices, one or more networks, the Internet, etc.) with the computing device of the user and/or with the network service.”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the confirmation information includes information on an installation state of the vehicle body and the power source (“Example communications include, but are not limited to, initiating locking or unlocking of the electric scooter 110 or the electric bicycle 130 (e.g., initiating or ending a travel session), initiating a battery swap to exchange a rechargeable battery in the battery holster 120 or the battery holster 140 with one in a rechargeable battery kiosk 150, determining a location and/or status information of the electric scooter 110 or the electric bicycle 130, and determining a location of a rechargeable battery and/or a rechargeable battery kiosk 150.”, [0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein
the vehicle is provided with a control circuit (“FIG. 11 is a system diagram of a computing device 1100 according to an example. The computing device 1100 may be integrated with or associated with a light electric vehicle, such as light electric vehicle 235 and light electric vehicle 335 shown and described with respect to FIG. 2A-FIG. 3B.”, [0169]) configured to perform a comparison between the measurement value and the threshold value in the comparison step, and the
confirmation information includes information on an installation state of the control circuit to the vehicle (“The computing device 1100 may also include one or more sensors 1190. The sensors 1190 may be used to detect or otherwise provide information about the operating condition of the computing device 1100. In other examples, the sensors 1190 may provide information about a light electric vehicle to which the computing device 1100 is associated. For example, the sensors 1190 may include a tire pressure sensor, an image sensor, a speed sensor, a tire alignment sensor, a rechargeable battery sensor and so on.”, [0177]).
Regarding claim 10, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the measurement value in the measurement step includes a plurality of measurement values (“Although specific sensors are mentioned, the light electric vehicle 235 may have any number of sensors that detect and/or determine a status of various components or parts of the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0087], [0086]),
the threshold value in the comparison step includes a plurality of threshold values (“The information collected by the sensors may be used to determine whether the light electric vehicle 235 is operating below an operation threshold and/or whether various components of the light electric vehicle 235 are operating as expected.”, [0086], “When this information is received by the light electric vehicle management system 205 (e.g., via an API and/or over the network 230), the light electric vehicle management system 205 may determine, using the received information, whether the light electric vehicle 235 is experiencing a maintenance event.”, [0088]), and
the display information in the first generation step includes an overall determination result that is the determination result as a whole based on the comparison result between each of the plurality of measurement values and corresponding each of the plurality of threshold values (“the light electric vehicle management system 205, may detect maintenance events, determine the cause of the maintenance events and determine how to address the maintenance events for a number of different light electric vehicles individually or at the same time or substantially the same time.”, [0066], see also [0104-0105, 0119]).
Regarding claim 11, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the display information in the first generation step includes the measurement value measured in the measurement step (“The control system of the electric scooter 110 and/or the electric bicycle 130 manages the power output to the one or motors, provides a visual indication as to a charge level of the rechargeable battery in the battery holster 120, and/or communicates directly (e.g., via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., via one or more remote computing devices, one or more networks, the Internet, etc.) with the computing device of the user and/or with the network service.”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the measurement value in the measurement step is measured by a sensor provided in the vehicle (“the light electric vehicle information 245 may be collected by one or more sensors associated with the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0086], “the light electric vehicle 235 may have a sensor that reads the tire pressure of the light electric vehicle 235, a sensor that detects an amount of torque that is being applied to one or more pedals of the light electric vehicle 235, a sensor that detect an amount of traction provided by the tires of the light electric vehicle 235, and so on.”, [0087]) and transmitted to the terminal via a network interface provided in the vehicle (“the rechargeable battery and/or battery holster 120 and 140 may include a visual indicator to display the charge level of the rechargeable battery.”, [0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 12, wherein
the vehicle is provided with a processor (“a system having at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor. The memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations”, [0005], “FIG. 11 is a system diagram of a computing device 1100 according to an example. The computing device 1100 may be integrated with or associated with a light electric vehicle, such as light electric vehicle 235 and light electric vehicle 335 shown and described with respect to FIG. 2A-FIG. 3B.”, [0169]) capable of communicating with the sensor, and
a comparison between the measurement value and the threshold value in the comparison step is performed by the processor (“The computing device 1100 may include at least one processing unit 1110 and a system memory 1120. The system memory 1120 may include, but is not limited to, volatile storage (e.g., random access memory), non-volatile storage (e.g., read-only memory), flash memory, or any combination of such memories. The system memory 1120 may also include an operating system 1130 that control the operation of the computing device 1100 and one or more program modules 1140. The program modules 1140 may be responsible for gathering or determining rider profile information, light electric vehicle information, riding habit information, and so on. The memory may also store this received/determined information 1150 or otherwise provide access to this information.”, [0170]).
Regarding claim 14, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second acquisition step of acquiring first identification information that is identification information of the vehicle (“the light electric vehicle management system 305 may determine or identify one or more light electric vehicles 335 that are in or otherwise associated with the location of the individual”, [0117]) and second identification information that is identification information of the entity of manufacturing or others (“once the individual has been identified by the rider profile information 345, the rider profile system 310 may access securely stored profile information of the individual in order to determine riding habits of the individual, a riding profile of the individual a rider type of the individual, whether the individual is authorized or is otherwise trained to address one or more maintenance events and/or perform one or more services on light electric vehicles 335, a current location of the individual, past routes taken by the individual, and so on.”, [0116]),
an association step of associating, in a seventh time period before the first time period, the first identification information with the second identification information (“Once one or more light electric vehicles 335 in or around the location of the individual are identified, the maintenance system 315 may determine whether any of the identified light electric vehicles 335 are experiencing, have experienced and/or are anticipated to experience a maintenance event.”, [0117]).
Regarding claim 18, Cooper teaches A management method for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user (see “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event”, [0104]) comprising:
a generation step of generating, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others (“when the maintenance event is detected, the maintenance system 215 may interact with the rider profile system 210 to determine the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event. Once those individuals have been identified, the maintenance system 215 and/or rider profile system 210 may determine which of those individuals are at or near to the current location of the light electric vehicle 235 or the anticipated destination of the light electric vehicle 235. The instruction management system 225 may then provide a requested action/location 280 of the light electric vehicle 235 to a computing device 275 associated with the identified individual.”, [0104]), and
an acquisition step of acquiring, in tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed included in the confirmation information (“When the requested action/location 280 is received by the identified individual, the identified individual may have the opportunity to accept performance of the requested action or deny the request.”, [0105]),
wherein the ninth time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user (“the maintenance system 215 may determine, based on rider profile information 250, that the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235 has not been trained to fix or otherwise address the detected maintenance event.”, [0101], where the time that “the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235” [0101] and the “determin[ing] the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] and “tak[ing] the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105] occur corresponds to Applicant’s “ninth time period” which occurs “after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source”, with the installed vehicle body and power source seen in Fig. 1, “and before delivery of the vehicle to the user”, where the “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] corresponds to Applicant’s “user”).
Regarding claim 20, Cooper teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a management program for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 1 (“The computing device 1100 may include at least one processing unit 1110 and a system memory 1120. The system memory 1120 may include, but is not limited to…non-volatile storage (e.g., read-only memory), flash memory, or any combination of such memories. The system memory 1120 may also include an operating system 1130 that control the operation of the computing device 1100 and one or more program modules 1140. The program modules 1140 may be responsible for gathering or determining rider profile information, light electric vehicle information, riding habit information, and so on. The memory may also store this received/determined information 1150 or otherwise provide access to this information.”, [0170],“A number of different program modules and data files may be stored in the system memory 1120. While executing on the processing unit 1110, the program modules 1140 may perform the various processes described above.”, [0172], see also [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Cooper teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a management program for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 18 (“The computing device 1100 may include at least one processing unit 1110 and a system memory 1120. The system memory 1120 may include, but is not limited to…non-volatile storage (e.g., read-only memory), flash memory, or any combination of such memories. The system memory 1120 may also include an operating system 1130 that control the operation of the computing device 1100 and one or more program modules 1140. The program modules 1140 may be responsible for gathering or determining rider profile information, light electric vehicle information, riding habit information, and so on. The memory may also store this received/determined information 1150 or otherwise provide access to this information.”, [0170],“A number of different program modules and data files may be stored in the system memory 1120. While executing on the processing unit 1110, the program modules 1140 may perform the various processes described above.”, [0172], see also [0005]).
Regarding claim 24, Cooper teaches An information processing device for managing a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the information processing device comprising:
a processor (“a system having at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor. The memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations”, [0005]) configured to, before delivery of the vehicle to a user (see “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event”, [0104]):
acquire, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source (“the light electric vehicle management system 205 may also receive light electric vehicle information 245 from the light electric vehicle 235 over the network 230. The light electric vehicle information 245 may include information about one or more operating parameters of the light electric vehicle 235. In some examples, the light electric vehicle information 245 may be collected by one or more sensors associated with the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0086], “the light electric vehicle 235 may have a sensor that reads the tire pressure of the light electric vehicle 235, a sensor that detects an amount of torque that is being applied to one or more pedals of the light electric vehicle 235, a sensor that detect an amount of traction provided by the tires of the light electric vehicle 235, and so on.”, [0087]), a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount (“the information from the one or more sensors may be used to determine performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235. The performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235 may include…how quickly the light electric vehicle 235 can accelerate,… balance characteristics (e.g., whether the alignment of the tires and/or spokes of the wheel(s) of the light electric vehicle 235 cause the light electric vehicle 235 to be wobbly) of the light electric vehicle 235, an amount of power provided by an electric assist motor of the light electric vehicle 235, and so on.”, [0087]), or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source (“the information from the one or more sensors may be used to determine performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235. The performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235 may include a rechargeable battery usage rate of the light electric vehicle 235”, [0087]); and
compare, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value (“The information collected by the sensors may be used to determine whether the light electric vehicle 235 is operating below an operation threshold and/or whether various components of the light electric vehicle 235 are operating as expected.”, [0086], “When this information is received by the light electric vehicle management system 205 (e.g., via an API and/or over the network 230), the light electric vehicle management system 205 may determine, using the received information, whether the light electric vehicle 235 is experiencing a maintenance event.”, [0088]),
wherein the first time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user (“when the maintenance event is detected, the maintenance system 215 may interact with the rider profile system 210 to determine the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event. Once those individuals have been identified, the maintenance system 215 and/or rider profile system 210 may determine which of those individuals are at or near to the current location of the light electric vehicle 235 or the anticipated destination of the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0104], “the individual that is riding the light electric vehicle may be provided a notification (e.g., on her computing device 255 and/or on a display of the light electric vehicle 235) and/or an incentive to take the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual so the identified individual can perform the requested action 280.”, [0105], (“the maintenance system 215 may determine, based on rider profile information 250, that the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235 has not been trained to fix or otherwise address the detected maintenance event.”, [0101], where the time that “the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235” [0101] and the “determin[ing] the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] and “tak[ing] the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105] occur corresponds to Applicant’s “first time period” which occurs “after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source”, with the installed vehicle body and power source seen in Fig. 1, “and before delivery of the vehicle to the user”, where the “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] corresponds to Applicant’s “user”).
Regarding claim 25, Cooper teaches An information processing device for managing a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the information processing device comprising:
a processor (“a system having at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor. The memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations”, [0005]) configured to, before delivery of the vehicle to a user (see “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event”, [0104]),
generate, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that includes information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others (“when the maintenance event is detected, the maintenance system 215 may interact with the rider profile system 210 to determine the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event. Once those individuals have been identified, the maintenance system 215 and/or rider profile system 210 may determine which of those individuals are at or near to the current location of the light electric vehicle 235 or the anticipated destination of the light electric vehicle 235. The instruction management system 225 may then provide a requested action/location 280 of the light electric vehicle 235 to a computing device 275 associated with the identified individual.”, [0104]), and
acquire input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed (“When the requested action/location 280 is received by the identified individual, the identified individual may have the opportunity to accept performance of the requested action or deny the request.”, [0105]),
wherein the ninth time period is after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user (“the maintenance system 215 may determine, based on rider profile information 250, that the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235 has not been trained to fix or otherwise address the detected maintenance event.”, [0101], where the time that “the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235” [0101] and the “determin[ing] the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] and “tak[ing] the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105] occur corresponds to Applicant’s “ninth time period” which occurs “after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source”, with the installed vehicle body and power source seen in Fig. 1, “and before delivery of the vehicle to the user”, where the “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] corresponds to Applicant’s “user”).
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19, 22, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 20210125421 A1) in view of Shimazu et al. (US 20200394407 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Cooper teaches A management method for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the method being performed before delivery of the vehicle to a user (see “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event”, [0104]) and comprising an acquisition step of acquiring:
image information on the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source (“The computing device 1100 may also include one or more sensors 1190. The sensors 1190 may be used to detect or otherwise provide information about the operating condition of the computing device 1100. In other examples, the sensors 1190 may provide information about a light electric vehicle to which the computing device 1100 is associated. For example, the sensors 1190 may include a tire pressure sensor, an image sensor” [0177])
wherein the acquisition step is performed after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user (“when the maintenance event is detected, the maintenance system 215 may interact with the rider profile system 210 to determine the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event. Once those individuals have been identified, the maintenance system 215 and/or rider profile system 210 may determine which of those individuals are at or near to the current location of the light electric vehicle 235 or the anticipated destination of the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0104], “the individual that is riding the light electric vehicle may be provided a notification (e.g., on her computing device 255 and/or on a display of the light electric vehicle 235) and/or an incentive to take the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual so the identified individual can perform the requested action 280.”, [0105], “the maintenance system 215 may determine, based on rider profile information 250, that the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235 has not been trained to fix or otherwise address the detected maintenance event.”, [0101], where the time that “the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235” [0101] and the “determin[ing] the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] and “tak[ing] the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105] occur corresponds to Applicant’s occurs “after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source”, with the installed vehicle body and power source seen in Fig. 1, “and before delivery of the vehicle to the user”, where the “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] corresponds to Applicant’s “user”).
Further, Shimazu teaches A management method for a vehicle (“human-powered vehicle”, [0102], Fig. 19) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“frame”, [0114, 0152, 0167], Fig. 19) and a power source (where the “user” of the “human-powered vehicle” is the power source, at least [0009])
or image information in which identification information of the vehicle body indicated on the vehicle body, (“At run-time, which is the time at which a user employs the trained machine learning model on the detecting device 1 to recognize objects in an image of the human powered vehicle, the control unit 100 is configured to receive a first image as input and output identification information that identifies the object as the target object and a confidence value of the identification of the object as the target object.”, [0104], “The control unit 100 inputs the accepted first image to the trained learning model 1M (step S305). The learning model 1M outputs the identification information corresponding to the type or model number of the detected frame, the detection range of the frame and the degree of accuracy in accordance with the input of the first image.”, [0175], Fig. 17, “The related information outputted at step S127 may include a diagnostic result of the quality of the installed state. Here, the control unit 100 diagnoses the quality of the installed state of a component from the first image obtained by imaging the component.”, [0164]).
Both Cooper and Shimazu teach a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source, and both teach determining maintenance is required on the vehicle based on analyzing the vehicle. Shimazu further teaches determining the maintenance is required based on an acquisition step of acquiring image information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cooper with the teachings of Shimazu such that the management method of Cooper further comprises acquiring an image, as suggested by Shimazu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “allow[] the user to readily obtain the related information of the human-powered vehicle from the image of the human-powered vehicle without a special diagnostic device” [0075], as suggested by Shimazu.
Regarding claim 22, Cooper teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a management program for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 19 (“The computing device 1100 may include at least one processing unit 1110 and a system memory 1120. The system memory 1120 may include, but is not limited to…non-volatile storage (e.g., read-only memory), flash memory, or any combination of such memories. The system memory 1120 may also include an operating system 1130 that control the operation of the computing device 1100 and one or more program modules 1140. The program modules 1140 may be responsible for gathering or determining rider profile information, light electric vehicle information, riding habit information, and so on. The memory may also store this received/determined information 1150 or otherwise provide access to this information.”, [0170],“A number of different program modules and data files may be stored in the system memory 1120. While executing on the processing unit 1110, the program modules 1140 may perform the various processes described above.”, [0172], see also [0005]).
Regarding claim 26, Cooper teaches An information processing device for managing a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the information processing device comprising a processor configured to acquire, before delivery of the vehicle to a user (see “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event”, [0104]):
image information on the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source (“The computing device 1100 may also include one or more sensors 1190. The sensors 1190 may be used to detect or otherwise provide information about the operating condition of the computing device 1100. In other examples, the sensors 1190 may provide information about a light electric vehicle to which the computing device 1100 is associated. For example, the sensors 1190 may include a tire pressure sensor, an image sensor” [0177])
wherein the processor is configured to acquire the image information after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source and before delivery of the vehicle to the user (“when the maintenance event is detected, the maintenance system 215 may interact with the rider profile system 210 to determine the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event. Once those individuals have been identified, the maintenance system 215 and/or rider profile system 210 may determine which of those individuals are at or near to the current location of the light electric vehicle 235 or the anticipated destination of the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0104], “the individual that is riding the light electric vehicle may be provided a notification (e.g., on her computing device 255 and/or on a display of the light electric vehicle 235) and/or an incentive to take the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual so the identified individual can perform the requested action 280.”, [0105], “the maintenance system 215 may determine, based on rider profile information 250, that the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235 has not been trained to fix or otherwise address the detected maintenance event.”, [0101], where the time that “the individual that is currently riding the light electric vehicle 235” [0101] and the “determin[ing] the location of one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] and “tak[ing] the light electric vehicle 235 to a location at or near the location of the identified individual” [0105] occur corresponds to Applicant’s occurs “after the installation of the vehicle body and the power source”, with the installed vehicle body and power source seen in Fig. 1, “and before delivery of the vehicle to the user”, where the “one or more individuals that have the training or certification level to address the detected maintenance event” [0104] corresponds to Applicant’s “user”).
Further, Shimazu teaches An information processing device for managing a vehicle (“human-powered vehicle”, [0102], Fig. 19) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“frame”, [0114, 0152, 0167], Fig. 19) and a power source (where the “user” of the “human-powered vehicle” is the power source, at least [0009])
or image information in which identification information of the vehicle body indicated on the vehicle body, (“At run-time, which is the time at which a user employs the trained machine learning model on the detecting device 1 to recognize objects in an image of the human powered vehicle, the control unit 100 is configured to receive a first image as input and output identification information that identifies the object as the target object and a confidence value of the identification of the object as the target object.”, [0104], “The control unit 100 inputs the accepted first image to the trained learning model 1M (step S305). The learning model 1M outputs the identification information corresponding to the type or model number of the detected frame, the detection range of the frame and the degree of accuracy in accordance with the input of the first image.”, [0175], Fig. 17, “The related information outputted at step S127 may include a diagnostic result of the quality of the installed state. Here, the control unit 100 diagnoses the quality of the installed state of a component from the first image obtained by imaging the component.”, [0164]).
Both Cooper and Shimazu teach a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source, and both teach determining maintenance is required on the vehicle based on analyzing the vehicle. Shimazu further teaches determining the maintenance is required based on an acquisition step of acquiring image information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cooper with the teachings of Shimazu such that the information processing device of Cooper further comprises acquiring an image, as suggested by Shimazu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “allow[] the user to readily obtain the related information of the human-powered vehicle from the image of the human-powered vehicle without a special diagnostic device” [0075], as suggested by Shimazu.
Regarding claim 15, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 14,
Further, Shimazu teaches
further comprising a change step of changing, in an eighth time period after the third time period, the second identification information associated with the first identification information to another second identification information that is identification information of another entity of manufacturing or others different from the entity of manufacturing or others (“The detecting device 1 in Embodiment 4, if the degree of accuracy through the detection by the learning model 1M is equal to or less than a predetermined value, accepts selection of the identification information of the shown component or frame, and retrains the learning model 1M by fourth images labeled with the selected identification information. Since Embodiment 4 is similar in configuration to Embodiment 1 except for the details of the processing performed by the control unit 100, common parts are denoted by similar reference codes and detailed description thereof will not be repeated.”, [0186]).
Both Cooper and Shimazu teach a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source (see the “human-powered vehicle” ([0102], Fig. 19) of Shimazu which comprises a “frame” ([0114, 0152, 0167], Fig. 19) and a power source where the “user” [0009] of the “human-powered vehicle” is the power source), and both teach determining maintenance is required on the vehicle based on analyzing the vehicle. Shimazu further teaches changing the second identification information to another second identification. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cooper with the teachings of Shimazu such that the management method of Cooper further comprises updating the second identification information, as suggested by Shimazu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “retrain the learning model, which enhances the accuracy of the detection” [0193], as suggested by Shimazu.
Regarding claim 16, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to any one of claim 1, further comprising a third acquisition step of acquiring:
image information on the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source (“The computing device 1100 may also include one or more sensors 1190. The sensors 1190 may be used to detect or otherwise provide information about the operating condition of the computing device 1100. In other examples, the sensors 1190 may provide information about a light electric vehicle to which the computing device 1100 is associated. For example, the sensors 1190 may include a tire pressure sensor, an image sensor” [0177])
Further, Shimazu teaches a third acquisition step of acquiring:
or image information in which identification information of the vehicle body indicated on the vehicle body, (“At run-time, which is the time at which a user employs the trained machine learning model on the detecting device 1 to recognize objects in an image of the human powered vehicle, the control unit 100 is configured to receive a first image as input and output identification information that identifies the object as the target object and a confidence value of the identification of the object as the target object.”, [0104], “The control unit 100 inputs the accepted first image to the trained learning model 1M (step S305). The learning model 1M outputs the identification information corresponding to the type or model number of the detected frame, the detection range of the frame and the degree of accuracy in accordance with the input of the first image.”, [0175], Fig. 17, “The related information outputted at step S127 may include a diagnostic result of the quality of the installed state. Here, the control unit 100 diagnoses the quality of the installed state of a component from the first image obtained by imaging the component.”, [0164]).
Both Cooper and Shimazu teach a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source (see the “human-powered vehicle” ([0102], Fig. 19) of Shimazu which comprises a “frame” ([0114, 0152, 0167], Fig. 19) and a power source where the “user” [0009] of the “human-powered vehicle” is the power source), and both teach determining maintenance is required on the vehicle based on analyzing the vehicle. Shimazu further teaches determining the maintenance is required based on an acquisition step of acquiring image information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cooper with the teachings of Shimazu such that the management method of Cooper further comprises acquiring an image, as suggested by Shimazu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “allow[] the user to readily obtain the related information of the human-powered vehicle from the image of the human-powered vehicle without a special diagnostic device” [0075], as suggested by Shimazu.
Regarding claim 17, Cooper in view of Shimazu teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 16, and Shimazu further teaches further comprising a second storage step of storing, in a time period after a time period in which the third acquisition step is performed, the acquired image information in a storage of a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others or another storage of a remote device capable of communicating with the terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others (“At step S319, the control unit 100 causes the display unit 104 to display the related information. The control unit 100 stores in the storage device 102 the identification information of the target frame and the related information in association with the identification information of the user (step S321), and ends the processing.”, [0183], Fig. 18, “The control unit 100 outputs the related information as at least one of text data and graphical data, such as a character string or an image. FIG. 19 is a display example of the related information displayed on the display unit 104 of the detecting device 1.”, [0184], Fig. 19, “The detecting device 1 is a smartphone in the first example. The detecting device 1 is a tablet terminal in the second example. The detecting device 1 includes…a storage device (storage unit) 102”, [0101], see also [0172], Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Cooper with the teachings of Shimazu such that the management method of Cooper further comprises storing the acquired image information, as suggested by Shimazu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that “the user can readily obtain the related information related to the frame provided in the human-powered vehicle from the image of the human-powered vehicle” [0185], as suggested by Shimazu.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 20210125421 A1) in view of Arboleda et al. (US 20210172882 A1) in view of Dudar (US 20180045143 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
Performing an installation check at the end of a manufacturing process of a vehicle, or at intermittent points in the manufacturing process of a vehicle, and starting the vehicle after the installation check is complete was known before the effective filing date.
See, Arboleda teaches
an installation check step of performing, on a terminal device, an installation check with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source (“In at least one variation, the VIR comprises a table with a visual indicator for each scanned checkpoint and the visual indicator is a pass or no-pass indicator. In such a variation the flexible inspection system can further include a display configured to receive and display the VIR to an operator (individual). Also, the displayed VIR includes the no-pass indicator for a checkpoint having a recorded characteristic not within a predefined tolerance of a reference characteristic, a vehicle diagram with a no-pass checkpoint marker illustrating where the no-pass checkpoint is located on the vehicle, an image of the reference characteristic for the checkpoint, and an image of the recorded characteristic.”, [0007], [0041]);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cooper with the teachings of Arboleda such that the management method of Cooper further comprises an installation check step, as suggested by Arboleda, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that the assembly of the vehicle “includes a multitude of inspections” such that “the positioning and secure attachment of components installed during assembly of the vehicle and/or connections between such components are inspected to ensure proper functioning of the vehicle when assembly is complete” [0003], as taught by Arboleda.
Arboleda teaches “In some variations of the present disclosure the chassis 150 moves from the OD station through additional assembly line stations until assembly of the vehicle is completed. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the chassis moves through a station ‘Q’ where a body 160 is mounted to the chassis 150 and station ‘Y’ where a hood 170 is mounted to the body 160. It should be understood that one or more additional inspection stations can be included in the assembly line 10 and such inspections stations can include a flexible inspection system according to the teachings of the present disclosure.”, [0027], emphasis added.
Arboleda does not explicitly teach
a start step of controlling, in response to completion of the installation check, a control circuit of the power source to turn on the power source in response to sending a start request from the terminal device to the control circuit of the power source installed on the vehicle.
However, turning on the power source of a vehicle in response to the completion of an installation check at the end of a manufacturing process of a vehicle, or at an intermittent point in the manufacturing process of a vehicle was known before the effective filing date.
See, Dudar teaches
a start step of controlling, in response to completion of the installation check, a control circuit of the power source to turn on the power source in response to sending a start request from the terminal device to the control circuit of the power source installed on the vehicle (“At 228, it may be determined if the vehicle is at an End of Line (EOL) static station. As such, the EOL station may be a station where the vehicle engine is started for the first time.”, [0050]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cooper in view of Arboleda with the teachings of Dudar such that the management method of Cooper further comprises turning on the power source in response to completion of the installation check, as suggested by Dudar, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be monitor “the engine…to be started for the first time in the drive history of the vehicle” [0049], as taught by Dudar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights