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
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of vehicle repossession which is a mental process. Other than reciting a device, dispatch system, GPS and kiosk nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the device, dispatch system, GPS and kiosk the limitations on track and handle repossession, provide location, initiate retrieval and track release is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to vehicle repossession stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element device, dispatch system, GPS and kiosk amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims , these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the vehicle repossession steps. The subject matter of claims 2 (extract DMV report), 3 (monitor drivers), 4 (recommend based on performance), 5 (includes a camera), 6 (detection of incident and notification), 7/9 (accept payment and provide location), 8 (capture image of user and documents), 10 (regulate dispatch and mark vehicle) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1,2,3,5,7,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Parker 20130317875 in view of
Bowers US 20170053250 A1 in view of
Martin 20160217439
Regarding Claim 1,
a remote electronic device having a software application configured to track and handle repossession of a vehicle;
Parker is directed to a system for managing a vehicle repossession database. (Parker, abstract, “A system distributes instructions from a central server to repossession agents through a smart-phone application that is in networked communication with the central server, and the repossession agents report information back to the central server through the smart-phone application. The smart-phone application can also be used by freelancers to provide suspect vehicle information to the central server.”)
a dispatch system in communication with the remote electronic device, the dispatch system including a GPS system linked through a mobile network to provide location information related to the vehicle and a repo driver handling the repossession of the vehicle; and
(Parker, para 0136, “[0136] After a Company User has been granted access into the database, the Company User will be able to gain entry into the database and utilize all of the features available. Use of the database by a Company User will allow a Company user to digitally manage their repossession company digitally. They will be able to establish all of the details regarding their storage facilities, clients, field agents, police departments, transport companies, services and fees associated with each service and then easily print off any required documents, maintain all of their repossession assignments, view active addresses on various maps and interact with the addresses as pins on the maps, establish a team of connected Field Agent Users that have the ability to interact with the Company Users repossession assignments, easily generate and dispatch routes to their connected Field Agents and receive return updates in real time that are automatically entered into the database under the correct address/assignment and automatically notify their clients of all activity on their assignments in real time.”; para 090, “[0090] When the user selects the option to send a completed update, the database will insert the exact text from within the return update that was just created, attach any photos that were captured during the update process, capture the user's current date, time and GPS coordinates and then send the completed return update to the sender of the original e-mail (sent to the user) and then create an exact copy of the entire return E-Mail including any photos to be stored in the Va Repo Database.”)
Parker does not explicitly disclose
including an interface for access by a user to initiate retrieval of the vehicle, the local kiosk system in communication with the dispatch system to track the temporary release and movement of the vehicle.
Bowers is directed to a system for car owners to pay towing and impound fees. (Bowers, abstract). Bowers discloses an app for viewing impound status and paying fees. (Bowers, para 0036, “[0036] Once a car is towed, the user/Car Owner/Driver can see the current location of the car position and if the car has been left at a tow impound lot the user can see the location and shortest path to get there. The goal is to not tow the vehicle to the impound lot but if it does get towed, the owner is provided with the location of the impound lot and has the opportunity to pay all fees through the application. The vehicle will then be released to the user at the impound lot upon his arrival at the impound lot.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Parker with the interface of Bowers with the motivation of retrieving and impounded vehicle. Id.
Parker does not explicitly disclose
a local kiosk system
Martin is directed to a integrated system for paying government agencies. (Martin, abstract; background, “[0003] The current operation of local, city, county or state agencies is one of a large collection of departments and offices that provide various governmental services to the public. Each of these departments can and does charge fees, collect taxes or create invoices, fines and fees for users for the services provided. Each department or agency provides its own collection and processing of payments or contracts this to outside vendors.”). Martin discloses that bill pay functionality could be implemented as a computer or payment kiosk. (Id., “The system has a plurality of separate agency or department databases and an icon or module menu of each department at a payment kiosk or payment computer connected to each database.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Parker and Bowers with the Kiosk of Martin with the motivation of paying fines. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
Parker does not explicitly disclose
wherein the dispatch system is configured to extract information from DMV reports.
(Martin, para 0032, “[0032] As shown in FIG. 1, the individual departments are illustrated around the outer perimeter. These can include the probation department, the courts, the police or sheriff department, the water department, department of motor vehicles (DMV), property tax, schools, parks and recreation, garbage, utilities, license and taxes, and permits. These different agencies are unique and distinct and have their own computer software generally. An important aspect of the present invention is that these systems need not be altered in any fashion. A simple edition shown in a center ring is a connecting area shown best in FIG. 2 as a cross check channel. It is an integrated network. This integrated network often called Government Window® by the inventors provides a means for connecting each department that is independently and otherwise very diverse in either their software programming or their systems to be connected for bill collection and payment. This center ring, if you will, creates a sleuth ring identified as a sleuth because it enables the user input to quietly and conveniently be cross checked at the various departments. For example, a person expecting a building permit goes to the building permit department and finds that he would have an invoice for permit of approximately $200.00; however, as the system is inputted with the payor information, it notes that this person also has additional 10 or 20 invoices for unpaid parking fines”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Parker and Bowers with the Kiosk of Martin with the motivation of paying fines. Id.
Regarding Claim 3, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Parker.
Regarding Claim 5, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the GPS system includes a camera.
(Parker, para 0047, “[0047] The mobile communications device has a computer processor, data storage, a display screen and a user input. The mobile communications device also has a communications module and preferably includes a camera module, a geo-location module and a navigation module.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 5.
wherein the local kiosk is configured to accept payment and provide location of the vehicle.
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the local kiosk is configured to accept payment and provide location of the vehicle.
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the software application is configured to regulate the dispatch processes and provide the repo driver the ability to mark the vehicle and manage dispatch calls.
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Claims 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Parker 20130317875 in view of
Bowers US 20170053250 A1 in view of
Martin 20160217439 in view of
Farnham 20160371553
Regarding Claim 4, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
Parker does not explicitly disclose
wherein the dispatch system is configured to recommend dispatch decisions based upon repo driver performance.
Farnham is directed to a vehicle fleet tracking and analysis system. (Farnham, abstract) Farnham discloses analysis of driver performance and review. (Farnham, para 0038, “[0038] A driver analysis engine acquires data regarding the performance of the driver 14 from the monitoring engine. The driver analysis engine may also receive information from the video repository engine and/or the mapping engine. The driver analysis engine compares the information related to the driver's performance against historical information for the driver 14, established standards, and comparisons to other drivers 14. Based upon this analysis, the driver analysis engine may present information for a supervisor to review, recommend training, etc.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Parker, Bowers and Martin with the performance monitoring of Farnham with the motivation of identifying training opportunities. Id.
Regarding Claim 6, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 5.
Parker does not explicitly disclose
wherein the camera will include event detection and notification capabilities to assess when an incident with the vehicle has occurred and transmit such event via a notification to a remote party.
Farnham disclose video of monitoring of driver incidents which are reported to a supervisor. (Farnham para 0007, “[0007] Embodiments of the invention solve the above-mentioned problems by providing a system, a computer program, and a method of fleet tracking and analysis. Embodiments of the invention associate video data from a video camera with the incident. Embodiments of the invention then populate the map with segments of the video to aid in the review of the incident by a supervisor. Embodiments of the invention perform detailed analysis of the drivers by comparing the drivers against other drivers in the fleet, across other fleets, across other similar drivers of other fleets, etc. Embodiments of the invention therefore provide improved analytical tools for operators of the fleet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Parker, Bowers and Martin with the performance monitoring of Farnham with the motivation of identifying training opportunities. (Farnham, para 0038)
Claims 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Parker 20130317875 in view of
Bowers US 20170053250 A1 in view of
Martin 20160217439 in view of
Aoyagi 20230385962
Regarding Claim 8, Parker, Bowers and Martin disclose the system of claim 1.
Parker does not explicitly disclose
wherein the interface of the local kiosk system includes a scanner configured to capture image data of a user and of documents.
Aoyagi is directed to a customer payment terminal. (Aoyagi, abstract). Aoyagi discloses registration with a payment terminal by photographing the customer and identification documents. (Aoyagi, para 0109, “[0109] FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating registration processing of personal identification information in the procedure P5 in FIG. 5. As illustrated in FIG. 6(a), the customer C photographs a face photo printed on a card surface of an identification card 70 attached with a face photo, for example, a driver's license or a national identification number card, together with his/her face by using a camera of the user terminal 10. FIG. 6(b) illustrates a scene in which an image acquired by photographing a face of the person himself/herself, and an image acquired by photographing the identification card 70 including the face photo on a card surface of the identification card 70 are captured in the user terminal 10. The registration processing of personal identification information may be performed by installing an application for personal confirmation (eKYC) in the user terminal 10, or may be performed on a predetermined website via a browser.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Parker, Bowers and Martin with the image capture of Aoyagi with the motivation of identifying customers. Id.
Conclusion
Relevant art not relied on but made of record include
“Top 9 Towing Dispatch Software Solutions”, 4/2023, https://www.allrideapps.com/towing-dispatch-softwares-solutions/
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627