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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 27-38 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/23/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
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.
In claims 32-33, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 31-33: the phrase “it” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what ”it” refers to..
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.
1. Claims 27-28, 31-33, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wasekura et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0080264, hereinafter “Wasekura”).
Regarding claim 27, Wasekura does disclose, a utilization control terminal comprising: at least one storage device configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire, from a storage medium that is carried by a predetermined user and stores attribute information and first biometric information of the user, the attribute information and the first biometric information by a predetermined mode of short-range radio communication; save the attribute information and the first biometric information in a storing apparatus in such a way that they are associated with each other (Wasekura, (para. [0106]), a face image of a user captured by a camera of a mobile terminal 30 is transmitted to the control center 10 at the time of admission to the vehicle allocation service. … face image as ID information of the user. …; (para. [0013]), the control center may further include a database configured to store an assessment value of each user, and the processor is configured to increase or decrease the assessment value depending on a usage state of the autonomous vehicle for each user and to determine a usage fee for each user depending on the assessment value; (para. [0045]), the personal authentication unit 53 is configured to wirelessly communicate with a mobile terminal 30 using the authentication communication device 42. The communication standard which is used by the authentication communication device 42 can be a standard for short-range radio communication such as WiFi or Bluetooth); perform biometric authentication based on second biometric information extracted from a captured image of the user and the first biometric information saved in the storing apparatus (Wasekura, (para. 0106]), a face image of a user captured by a camera of a mobile terminal 30 is transmitted to the control center 10 at the time of admission to the vehicle allocation service and the face image is registered in the database of the vehicle allocation control server 20); specify attribute information associated with the first biometric information that has succeeded in the biometric authentication (Wasekura, (para. 0038]), the personal authentication unit 53 compares an image of a person near the autonomous vehicle 40 captured by a camera sensor of the autonomous vehicle 40 with the face image of the user acquired from the vehicle allocation control server 20, and authenticates the person imaged by the camera sensor as an identical person of a vehicle allocation request when both images match each other); and output a usage fee of a predetermined service calculated based on the attribute information (Wasekura, (para. 0038]), an assessment value may be referred to for calculating a usage fee. For example, a rate which is used to calculate a usage fee may be changed depending on the assessment value, or an extra fee or a discounted fee may be determined depending on the assessment value so that the usage fee increases relatively as the assessment value decreases and the usage fee decreases relatively as the assessment value increases).
Regarding claim 28, Wasekura further discloses, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output the usage fee calculated taking into account a discount based on the attribute information (Wasekura, (para. 0038]), an assessment value may be referred to for calculating a usage fee. For example, a rate which is used to calculate a usage fee may be changed depending on the assessment value, or an extra fee or a discounted fee may be determined depending on the assessment value).
Regarding claim 31, Wasekura further discloses, the utilization control terminal according to claim 28, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, when it has accepted an electronic application for using a predetermined service, the usage fee calculated taking into account a discount based on the attribute information (Wasekura, (para. [0038]), an assessment value may be referred to for calculating a usage fee. For example, a rate which is used to calculate a usage fee may be changed depending on the assessment value, or an extra fee or a discounted fee may be determined depending on the assessment value so that the usage fee increases relatively as the assessment value decreases and the usage fee decreases relatively as the assessment value increases).
Regarding claim 32, Wasekura further discloses, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, when it is determined that the user can be permitted to use the service based on the result of the biometric authentication, an entry permission notification to an entry control apparatus that controls entry of the user (Wasekura, (para. [0045]), the personal authentication unit 53 compares the ID information directly acquired from the mobile terminal 30 by short-range radio communication with the ID information of the user acquired from the vehicle allocation control server 20. When both match each other, the personal authentication unit 53 authenticates the user of the mobile terminal 30 as a person having requested allocation of a vehicle. The personal authentication performed by the personal authentication unit 53 is used).
Regarding claim 33, Wasekura further discloses, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, when it is determined that the user can be permitted to use the service based on the result of the biometric authentication, display information indicating that the user can be permitted to use the service (Wasekura, (para. [0057]), by setting a time at which the user can request replacement of the autonomous vehicle 40A to a time point after the authentication process has been completed, it is ensured that the vehicle replacement request is transmitted after the user has definitely checked the state of the allocated autonomous vehicle 40A).
Regarding claim 35, Wasekura further discloses, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27, wherein the storage medium is a non-contact type Integrated Circuit (IC) card capable of performing short-range radio communication by a predetermined mode (Wasekura, (para. [0040]), the mobile terminal 30 preferably includes a chip of short-range radio communication (not illustrated) such as WiFi or Bluetooth (registered trademark) and a chip of near-field radio communication (not illustrated) such as Felica (registered trademark) or NFC), and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the attribute information and the first biometric information by short-range radio communication with the non-contact type IC card by the predetermined mode (Wasekura, (para. [0040]), the personal authentication unit 53 performs short-range radio communication with the mobile terminal 30 located near the autonomous vehicle 40 and directly acquires ID information).
Regarding claim 36, Wasekura further discloses, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27, wherein the utilization control terminal is a mobile terminal (Wasekura, (para. 0040]), the vehicle allocation control unit 21 is configured to perform a reception process of receiving a vehicle allocation request which is transmitted from a mobile terminal 30 of a user via the network 2).
Regarding claim 37, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 27. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 38, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 27. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasekura et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0080264, hereinafter “Wasekura”) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US Pub No. 2020/036470, hereinafter “Hayakawa”).
Regarding claim 29, Wasekura does disclose, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27.
Wasekura does not explicitly disclose but the analogous art Hayakawa discloses, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output, when the attribute information indicates an elderly person, a person with disabilities, or a student, the usage fee calculated taking into account a discount in accordance with each attribute information (Hayakawa, (para. [0100]), the fee information generation unit 211 may calculate the usage fee according to a discount classification (for example, a discount for the disabled) input by the toll collector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wasekura by including output, when the attribute information indicates a person with disabilities, the usage fee calculated taking into account a discount taught by Hayakawa for the advantage of maintaining the security level required by the payer (Hayakawa, (para. [0141])).
3. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasekura et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0080264, hereinafter “Wasekura”) in view of Kimura (US Pub No. 2020/0364701, hereinafter “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 30, Wasekura does disclose, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27.
Wasekura does not explicitly disclose but the analogous art Kimura discloses,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output the usage fee calculated taking into account a discount in accordance with a date of birth in the attribute information (Kimura, (para. [0627]), a discounted usage fee for the vehicle (a non-limiting example of information regarding the usage fee for the vehicle) that is based on user information (a non-limiting example of information regarding the situation where the advertisement is displayed on the display device) such as the sex, the age (the age range), the place of residence, and the occupation of the user who has boarded the vehicle in which the advertisement is displayed on the display device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wasekura by including output the usage fee calculated taking into account a discount in accordance with a date of birth in the attribute information taught by Kimura for the advantage of improving a method of setting and processing a usage fee for vehicles (Kimura, (para. [0003])).
4. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasekura et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0080264, hereinafter “Wasekura”) in view of Isobe et al. (US Pub No. 2008/0068647, hereinafter “Isobe”).
Regarding claim 34, Wasekura does disclose, the utilization control terminal according to claim 27.
Wasekura does not explicitly disclose but the analogous art Isobe discloses,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, when the biometric authentication has failed, guidance information of a mode of [the short-range radio] communication to be used to acquire the attribute information and the first biometric information (Isobe, (para. [0102]), when receiving the notification to the effect that the authentication results in NG (step S1021: NO), the MFP 1 displays a message to the effect that login is failed on the display device 122 (step S1004), and displays a screen prompting entrance of login information again).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wasekura by including when the biometric authentication has failed, guidance information of a mode of the communication to be used to acquire the attribute information and the first biometric information taught by Isobe for the advantage of fee charging is easy for a service provider which provides services (Isobe, (para. [0120])).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2020/0364701, “the use information includes various types of information used for calculating a usage fee in the roadside device 20 such as an onboard device ID for identifying the onboard device 10, a vehicle type classification of the vehicle A in which the onboard device 10 is mounted, a discount classification of the vehicle A (for example, information indicating application of a discount for the disabled), entrance information (an entrance toll booth number and a passage time) for identifying an entrance toll booth used by the vehicle. Also, it is assumed that the use information is stored in a storage medium (not shown) of the onboard device 10 or an IC card (such as an ETC card) inserted into the onboard device 10”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORSHED MEHEDI whose telephone number is (571) 270-7640. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reach on (571) 270-5440. The fax 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 their 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.
/MORSHED MEHEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408