/DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “failure prediction unit”, “failure time estimation unit”, “occupant detection unit”, “judgment unit”, and “output control unit” in claim 19/
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 is rejected by way of its dependency on rejected claim 12.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 19 are directed to a method and device, respectively, for failure prediction information output. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A failure prediction information output control method comprising:
predicting a failure of a vehicle based on a vehicle signal that indicates characteristics of the vehicle;
estimating a time when the failure of the vehicle occurs based on the predicted failure;
acquiring identification information of a management and repair participant of the vehicle who has an authority or an obligation to request for repair for the failure of the vehicle and is involved in the repair by receiving the request;
detecting identification information of an occupant of the vehicle;
comparing the detected identification information of the occupant and the acquired identification information of the management and repair participant of the vehicle; and
when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in a case where the occupant is a user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at a time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is out of a vehicle usage period, not outputting notification information about the predicted failure to the occupant.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the steps of predicting a failure, estimating a time, acquiring identification information, detecting identification information, comparing the detected identification information, and not outputting notification information encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, acquired, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a 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 are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A failure prediction information output control method comprising:
predicting a failure of a vehicle based on a vehicle signal that indicates characteristics of the vehicle;
estimating a time when the failure of the vehicle occurs based on the predicted failure;
acquiring identification information of a management and repair participant of the vehicle who has an authority or an obligation to request for repair for the failure of the vehicle and is involved in the repair by receiving the request;
detecting identification information of an occupant of the vehicle;
comparing the detected identification information of the occupant and the acquired identification information of the management and repair participant of the vehicle; and
when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in a case where the occupant is a user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at a time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is out of a vehicle usage period, not outputting notification information about the predicted failure to the occupant.
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 limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the limitation of a vehicle signal that indicates characteristics of the vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere selection of a particular data source or type to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 19 further recite a failure prediction unit, a failure time estimation unit, a database, an occupant detection unit, a judgment unit, and an output control unit. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and units are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps.
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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 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 element of using a device comprising units to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitation of the vehicle signal is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional because the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle is anything other than a conventional vehicle. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 1-12 and 14-18 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 1-12 and 14-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220058891 A1, filed December 26th, 2018, hereinafter “Sakurada”, in view of US 20220058891 A1, filed August 23rd, 2021, hereinafter “Ha”.
Regarding claim 1, Sakurada teaches A failure prediction information output control method. See at least [0117]-[0118] and figure 5.
comprising: predicting a failure of a vehicle based on a vehicle signal that indicates characteristics of the vehicle. See at least [0118]-[0119] and figure 5, steps S25-27, wherein a repair point (failure) is detected based on an acquired signal comprising vehicle state information. The vehicle state information includes characteristics such as travel distance, engine quality, brake quality, batter state, etc.
acquiring identification information of a management and repair participant of the vehicle who has an authority or an obligation to request for repair for the failure of the vehicle and is involved in the repair by receiving the request. See at least [0052], [0054], and [0055]-[0059], wherein identification information of vehicle users and maintenance users. Vehicle users include users having control of the vehicle, and maintenance users include users who perform servicing and maintenance of the vehicle.
detecting identification information of an occupant of the vehicle. See at least [0091]-[0093] and figure 3, step S1, wherein, during vehicle startup, an authentication unit of the vehicle detects authentication information of the vehicle user.
comparing the detected identification information of the occupant and the acquired identification information of the management and repair participant of the vehicle. See at least [0046], wherein a comparison is made between received authentication information and stored authentication information to identify the requesting user. See at least [0091]-[0093] and figure 3, step S2, wherein the requesting user is identified as a vehicle user. See at least [0161]-[0163] and figure 7, step S51, wherein the requesting user is identified as a maintenance user.
Sakurada remains silent on estimating a time when the failure of the vehicle occurs based on the predicted failure; and when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in a case where the occupant is a user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at a time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is out of a vehicle usage period, not outputting notification information about the predicted failure to the occupant.
Ha teaches estimating a time when the failure of the vehicle occurs based on the predicted failure. See at least [0022] and [0145], wherein a time point where a vehicle part is predicted to reach a failure level is determined.
and when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in a case where the occupant is a user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at a time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is out of a vehicle usage period, not outputting notification information about the predicted failure to the occupant. See at least [0065], [0111], and [0129], wherein user devices and the associated users are authenticated. See at least [0178] and figure 15, wherein, if a reservation time (usage period) for a user device is after the predicted maintenance time, then the user is not notified about the part failure (S425). If the predicted maintenance time is within the usage period, the user is notified (S420) and prompted to change vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of estimating a time when failure occurs, and not outputting a notification about the failure if the predicted time is not within the user’s usage period, the user being a fleet participant instead of a repairman or administrator. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in the case where the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at the time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is within the vehicle usage period, outputting the notification information to the occupant.
Ha teaches when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in the case where the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at the time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is within the vehicle usage period, outputting the notification information to the occupant. See at least [0065], [0111], and [0129], wherein user devices and the associated users are authenticated. See at least [0178] and figure 15, wherein, if a reservation time (usage period) for a user device is after the predicted maintenance time, then the user is not notified about the part failure (S425). If the predicted maintenance time is within the usage period, the user is notified (S420) and prompted to change vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of outputting a notification about the failure if the predicted time is within the user’s usage period, the user being a fleet participant instead of a repairman or administrator. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada additionally teaches when the occupant is the management and repair participant of the vehicle and the management and repair participant is a repairman involved in the repair of the vehicle, displaying information including at least one of a time when the failure is predicted, a cause of the failure, a vehicle signal, a failure occurrence portion and a failure component name or a failure component code. See at least [0160]-[0161] and figure 7, step S51, wherein the user is authenticated as a maintenance user involved in servicing the vehicle. See at least [0086], [0156], and figure 6, step S45, wherein vehicle state information for the predicted repair point is displayed for the maintenance user, including repair necessity history information. See at least [0064], wherein the repair necessity history information includes time information of repair points, a part to be serviced, vehicle state information at the repair point, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada additionally teaches when the occupant is the management and repair participant of the vehicle and the management and repair participant is a manager involved in management of the vehicle, displaying information including at least one of a time when the failure is predicted, a cause of the failure, a repair cost, a route to a repair place, a candidate for a repairable point and a repair reservation screen. See at least [0091]-[0093] and figure 3, step S2, wherein the requesting user is identified as a vehicle user. See at least [0125]-[0126] and figure 6, step S29, wherein the vehicle user is presented information including a time point for the detected repair point and vehicle information related to the repair point. See at least [0147] and figure 5, step S37, wherein a repair estimate is displayed.
Regarding claim 5, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, outputting information that the vehicle cannot reach a destination.
Ha teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, outputting information that the vehicle cannot reach a destination. See at least [0065], [0111], and [0129], wherein user devices and the associated users are authenticated. If the predicted maintenance time is within the usage period, the user is notified (S420) and prompted to change vehicles. Additionally, see at least [0023], [0102], and [0180], wherein, when the maintenance time is determined while the fleet user is operating the vehicle, the user is notified via a message that the vehicle should be returned to a maintenance site rather than the original destination.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of outputting information that the vehicle cannot reach a destination if the predicted time is within the user’s usage period, the user being a fleet participant instead of a repairman or administrator. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the vehicle usage period is unknown, acquiring the vehicle usage period by asking the occupant to input the vehicle usage period.
Ha teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the vehicle usage period is unknown, acquiring the vehicle usage period by asking the occupant to input the vehicle usage period. See at least [0113], wherein users input a use time, or vehicle usage period, as part of a use request.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of vehicle users inputting their vehicle usage period. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the vehicle usage period is unknown, acquiring information from an external terminal or a vehicle interior terminal, and estimating the vehicle usage period.
Ha teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the vehicle usage period is unknown, acquiring information from an external terminal or a vehicle interior terminal, and estimating the vehicle usage period. See at least [0176] and figure 6, wherein user information is acquired from a user requesting device 100, external to vehicle 300. The user information includes usage pattern information. See at least [0121], wherein usage pattern information is estimated from user data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of acquiring information from an external terminal to estimate vehicle usage. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Sakurada and Ha disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sakurada additionally teaches when the failure of the vehicle component occurs, displaying information including at least one of a time when the failure is predicted, a cause of the failure, a repair cost, a route to a repair place, a candidate for a repairable point, a repair reservation screen, a vehicle signal, a failure occurrence portion and a failure component name or a failure component code on a vehicle external display unit. See at least [0124] and figure 5, step S28, wherein the repair point notification is performed for both regular maintenance (predicted repair point) occurrences and failure occurrences. See at least [0086], [0156], and figure 6, step S45, wherein vehicle state information for the predicted repair point is displayed for the maintenance user, including repair necessity history information. See at least [0064], wherein the repair necessity history information includes time information of repair points, a part to be serviced, vehicle state information at the repair point, etc. See at least [0125]-[0126] and figure 6, step S29, wherein the vehicle user is presented information including a time point for the detected repair point and vehicle information related to the repair point. See at least [0147] and figure 5, step S37, wherein a repair estimate is displayed.
Regarding claim 19, Sakurada teaches A failure prediction information output control device. See at least figure 1.
comprising: a failure prediction unit configured to predict a failure of a vehicle based on a vehicle signal that indicates characteristics of the vehicle. See at least [0118]-[0119] and figure 5, steps S25-27, wherein a repair point (failure) is detected based on an acquired signal comprising vehicle state information. The vehicle state information includes characteristics such as travel distance, engine quality, brake quality, batter state, etc.
a data base configured to store identification information of a management and repair participant of the vehicle who has an authority or an obligation to request for repair for the failure of the vehicle and is involved in the repair by receiving the request. See at least [0052], [0054], and [0055]-[0059], wherein identification information of vehicle users and maintenance users. Vehicle users include users having control of the vehicle, and maintenance users include users who perform servicing and maintenance of the vehicle.
an occupant detection unit configured to detect an occupant of the vehicle and detect identification information of the detected occupant. See at least [0091]-[0093] and figure 3, step S1, wherein, during vehicle startup, an authentication unit of the vehicle detects authentication information of the vehicle user.
a judgment unit configured to judge whether the occupant is the management and repair participant of the vehicle by comparing the identification information of the occupant and the identification information of the management and repair participant of the vehicle. See at least [0046], wherein a comparison is made between received authentication information and stored authentication information to identify the requesting user. See at least [0091]-[0093] and figure 3, step S2, wherein the requesting user is identified as a vehicle user. See at least [0161]-[0163] and figure 7, step S51, wherein the requesting user is identified as a maintenance user.
Sakurada remains silent on a failure time estimation unit configured to estimate a time when the failure of the vehicle occurs based on the predicted failure; and an output control unit configured to, when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in a case where the occupant is a user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at a time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is out of a vehicle usage period, not output notification information about the predicted failure to the occupant.
Ha teaches a failure time estimation unit configured to estimate a time when the failure of the vehicle occurs based on the predicted failure; See at least [0022] and [0145], wherein a time point where a vehicle part is predicted to reach a failure level is determined.
and an output control unit configured to, when it is judged that the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs in a case where the occupant is a user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle at a time when the failure of the vehicle is predicted is out of a vehicle usage period, not output notification information about the predicted failure to the occupant. See at least [0065], [0111], and [0129], wherein user devices and the associated users are authenticated. See at least [0178] and figure 15, wherein, if a reservation time (usage period) for a user device is after the predicted maintenance time, then the user is not notified about the part failure (S425). If the predicted maintenance time is within the usage period, the user is notified (S420) and prompted to change vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of estimating a time when failure occurs, and not outputting a notification about the failure if the predicted time is not within the user’s usage period, the user being a fleet participant instead of a repairman or administrator. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Claims 8-9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada and Ha as applied to claims above, and further in view of JP2011198185A, published October 6th, 2011, hereinafter “Naohiro”.
Regarding claim 8, Sakurada and Ha in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the vehicle usage period is unknown, notifying a manager involved in management of the vehicle among the management and repair participant of the vehicle that someone other than the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle rides in the vehicle, and displaying a screen for selecting whether to approve the occupant as a service user.
Ha teaches someone other than the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle rides in the vehicle. See at least [0121] and [0123], wherein the system detects if any additional passengers, other than the vehicle user, are present in the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of detecting non-user vehicle occupants. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Naohiro teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the vehicle usage period is unknown, notifying a manager involved in management of the vehicle among the management and repair participant of the vehicle that the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle rides in the vehicle, and displaying a screen for selecting whether to approve the occupant as a service user. See at least [0072] and [0099], wherein the occupant of the vehicle is authenticated as a car sharing user. See at least [0003], wherein a car sharing user is not the owner of the car. Additionally, see at least [0145]-[0147], wherein, when a failure is determined to occur when the user is operating the vehicle, an administrator is notified of the failure occurrence. The administrator is then prompted via a display to approve or disallow the user to continue using the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of notifying a manager when a failure is predicted to occur when the user rides in the vehicle, and direct the administrator to approve or deny the user to continue using the vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Sakurada, Ha, and Naohiro in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8, and Sakurada remains silent on when the occupant is not approved as the service user by the manager, outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen for selecting whether to approve the occupant as the service user, and performing an emergency stop.
Naohiro teaches when the occupant is not approved as the service user by the manager, outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen for selecting whether to approve the occupant as the service user, and performing an emergency stop. See at least [0105] and [0122], wherein, when the determination is made that the user cannot keep using the vehicle, the vehicle outputs instructions for the user to stop the vehicle, and exit the vehicle to return the vehicle’s key.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen, and performing an emergency stop. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Sakurada and Ha in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is later than the vehicle usage period, displaying a screen for selecting whether to approve a vehicle travel continuation permission and a vehicle usage period extension to a manager involved in management of the vehicle among the management and repair participant of the vehicle, and notifying content of refusal only when at least one of these permission and extension is refused.
Ha teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is later than the vehicle usage period. See at least [0143]-[0145], [0154], [0180] and figure 16, step S510, wherein the system determines if a vehicle part reaches an essential level while the user uses the vehicle, or after. See at least [0152], wherein an essential level is a level where the part requires maintenance.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Sakurada with Ha’s technique of detecting when a part reaches an essential level relative to a vehicle’s use period. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables shared vehicle fleets to perform timely maintenance and management without inconveniencing fleet users, as recognized by Ha (see at least [0003]-[0005]).
Naohiro teaches displaying a screen for selecting whether to approve a vehicle travel continuation permission and a vehicle usage period extension to a manager involved in management of the vehicle among the management and repair participant of the vehicle, and notifying content of refusal only when at least one of these permission and extension is refused. See at least [0145]-[0147], wherein an administrator is notified of the detected failure of the vehicle. The administrator is then prompted to allow or disallow continued use of the vehicle. If the administrator disallows continued use of the vehicle, the system blocks any further reservations to be made for use of the vehicle
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of notifying a manager when a failure is predicted to occur, and direct the administrator to approve or deny continued use of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 15, Sakurada, Ha, and Naohiro in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14, and Sakurada remains silent on when the vehicle travel continuation permission is refused, presenting an alternative vehicle or a candidate for transportation means to the manager of the vehicle.
Naohiro teaches when the vehicle travel continuation permission is refused, presenting an alternative vehicle or a candidate for transportation means to the manager of the vehicle. See at least [0111], [0116], [0147], wherein, when the vehicle cannot continue to be used, the user is presented with a message to make a reservation for another vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of presenting alternative vehicles for transportation to users. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Sakurada, Ha, and Naohiro in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14, and Sakurada remains silent on when the vehicle travel continuation permission is refused, searching a possible stop point closest to a current location, outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle, and performing an emergency stop.
Naohiro teaches when the vehicle travel continuation permission is refused, searching a possible stop point closest to a current location, outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle, and performing an emergency stop. See at least [0105] and [0122], wherein, when the determination is made that the user cannot keep using the vehicle, the vehicle outputs instructions for the user to stop the vehicle, and exit the vehicle to return the vehicle’s key.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen, and performing an emergency stop. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, Sakurada, Ha, and Naohiro in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14, and Sakurada remains silent on when the vehicle usage period extension is refused, controlling a display on an operation screen so that the vehicle usage period extension cannot be extended.
Naohiro teaches when the vehicle usage period extension is refused, controlling a display on an operation screen so that the vehicle usage period extension cannot be extended. See at least [0107], [0112], and [0115], wherein, when the vehicle usage period extension is refused, a reservation site is controlled to disallow any further reservations.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of preventing further vehicle usage periods to be reserved. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Sakurada and Ha in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and Sakurada teaches a cause of the failure is malfunction that will not meet performance requirements set forth in a safety standard. See at least [0062], wherein a repair point is determined based on identifying that a vehicle part does not meet allowable range requirements set forth in a safety standard.
Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, displaying a screen for selecting whether to approve a vehicle travel continuation permission and a vehicle usage period extension to a manager involved in management of the vehicle among the management and repair participant of the vehicle, and notifying content of refusal only when at least one of these permission and extension is refused.
Naohiro teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, displaying a screen for selecting whether to approve a vehicle travel continuation permission and a vehicle usage period extension to a manager involved in management of the vehicle among the management and repair participant of the vehicle, and notifying content of refusal only when at least one of these permission and extension is refused. See at least [0145]-[0147], wherein an administrator is notified of the detected failure of the vehicle. The administrator is then prompted to allow or disallow continued use of the vehicle. If the administrator disallows continued use of the vehicle, the vehicle user is directed to stop using the vehicle, and the system blocks any further reservations to be made for use of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of notifying a manager when a failure is predicted to occur, and direct the administrator to approve or deny continued use of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada, Ha, and Naohiro as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20230182772 A1, filed December 14th, 2021, hereinafter ‘Funke”.
Regarding claim 11, Sakurada and Ha in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, searching a possible stop point closest to a current location, and outputting a route from the current location to the possible stop point and a stop instruction.
Naohiro teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, outputting a stop instruction. See at least [0105] and [0122], wherein, when the determination is made that the user cannot keep using the vehicle, the vehicle outputs instructions for the user to stop the vehicle, and exit the vehicle to return the vehicle’s key.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen, and performing an emergency stop. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Funke teaches searching a possible stop point closest to a current location, and outputting a route from the current location to the possible stop point. See at least [0037]-[0038], wherein a stop point is determined that is closest to a pickup or delivery location on a delivery route, and a route from the current location of the vehicle to the stop point is output for the vehicle to follow.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Funke’s technique of searching a closest possible stop point, and outputting a route from the current location to the possible stop point. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to avoid putting occupants in dangerous situations, as recognized by Funke (see at least [0001]).
Regarding claim 12, Sakurada and Ha in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period and further a via-point or a temporary getting-out point where the vehicle can stop before the occurrence of the vehicle failure is already input, outputting a contact instruction to the management and repair participant of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives at the via-point or the temporary getting-out point.
Naohiro teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, outputting a contact instruction to the management and repair participant of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives at the via-point or the temporary getting-out point. See at least [0145]-[0147], wherein an administrator is notified of the detected failure of the vehicle. The administrator is then prompted to allow or disallow continued use of the vehicle. If the administrator disallows continued use of the vehicle, the administrator is directed to contact the user
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen, and performing an emergency stop. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Funke teaches and further a via-point or a temporary getting-out point where the vehicle can stop before the occurrence of the vehicle failure is already input. See at least [0036], wherein the planned route for the vehicle includes intervening waypoints.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Funke’s technique of inputting a route including intervening waypoints. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to avoid putting occupants in dangerous situations, as recognized by Funke (see at least [0001]).
Regarding claim 13, Sakurada, Ha, Naohiro, and Funke in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 12, and Sakurada remains silent on when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, controlling the vehicle so the occupant cannot get out of the vehicle until the contact to the management and repair participant of the vehicle is completed when the vehicle arrives at a presented possible stop point closest to the current location, the via-point or the temporary getting-out point.
Naohiro teaches when it is judged that the occupant is the user who is not the management and repair participant of the vehicle and also the time when the failure of the vehicle occurs is within the vehicle usage period, the contact to the management and repair participant of the vehicle is completed when the vehicle arrives at a presented possible stop point closest to the current location, the via-point or the temporary getting-out point. See at least [0105] and [0145]-[0147], wherein an administrator is notified of the detected failure of the vehicle. The administrator is then prompted to allow or disallow continued use of the vehicle. If the administrator disallows continued use of the vehicle, the administrator is directed to contact the user and the user is prompted to stop the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Naohiro’s technique of outputting an instruction to get out of the vehicle on the screen, and performing an emergency stop. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables car sharing systems to respond to failures and detected defects in vehicles, as recognized by Naohiro (see at least [0001]-[0006] and [0049]).
Funke teaches controlling the vehicle so the occupant cannot get out of the vehicle. See at least [0018], [0045], and [0077]-[0079] wherein the vehicle’s doors are prevented from opening so the passenger is prevented from exciting the vehicle until a safety condition is met.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Sakurada with Funke’s technique of controlling the vehicle so the occupant cannot get out of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to avoid putting occupants in dangerous situations, as recognized by Funke (see at least [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667