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 .
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are pending for examination. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. This action is Non-Final.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner asserts that the claimed method falls within "Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity" and "Mental Processes." However, amended claim 1 does not merely recite commercial interactions or mental steps. Instead, amended claim 1 recites a highly technical, specific graphical user interface (GUI) dynamic display control method performed by a terminal apparatus.
In particular, amended claim 1 recites specific steps of sequential screen transitions based on dynamic user selection status tracking:
1. Displaying a plurality of stations in a uniform mode prior to user interaction.
2. In response to a user initially selecting a first station belonging to a first group,
displaying each station belonging to the first group in a first mode.
3. When a second station subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, updating the dynamic interface to display each station belonging to the second group in a third mode, while maintaining each station belonging to the first group in the first mode and displaying each station not belonging to either the first or second group in a second mode.
This specific set of operations requires the controller to track multiple persistent user interactions on the GUI, cross-reference them with the specific location/group information stored in the local hardware memory, and continuously modulate the visual presentation features (color, shape, brightness) in real-time. These operations are not commercial interactions or mental processes: they are computer-implemented GUI controls. Further, these technical operations do not refer to business processes and cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A, prong one, as it is not directed to commercial interactions and/or mental processes.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that that the claim features of determining a current position of the terminal apparatus; receiving, a location information and group information of a plurality of stations each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus; displaying the plurality of stations that serve as locations for renting out and returning the one or more mobile objects in a uniform mode; in response to a user initially selecting a first station, based on group information a first group to which the first station belongs, and displaying each station belonging to the first group in a first mode; [Claim 6] displaying among one or more stations that belong to one or more groups other than the first group, a station that satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode; when a second station subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, identifying the second group based on the group information and displaying each station belonging to the second group in a third mode; and identifying , each station that does not belong to either the first group or the second group, and displaying each station identified in a second mode, wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations and/or encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper; thus, if a claim limitation, under its 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. The examiner respectfully notes that the GUI, as argued above, is noted to be an additional element that is described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋⁋[0012-[0013] and [0015] and [0023]). This element in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Inasmuch, the examiner finds the GUI a generic computer component and merely invokes the element as a tool to perform the abstract idea as noted above. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Even assuming that amended claim 1 is found to involve an abstract idea, the above additional claim limitations 1-3 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving terminal user interface efficiency and reducing operational cognitive burden for users.
[...]
Amended claim 1 recites a concrete computer-implemented GUI control for improving user interface responsiveness and information visualization. Under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) software limitations that make computers or user interfaces operate more efficiently are patent-eligible technical improvements. Enfish specifically held that [...] Applying this case law to the present situation, the method of claim 1 leads to improvements in terminal user interface efficiency, as outlined above, which shows that claim 1 is non-abstract.
Under Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), graphical user interfaces that make computers operate more efficiently are patent- eligible technical improvements. Core Wireless specifically held that: [..]
Applying this case law to the present situation, the method of claim 1 leads to improvements in how stations are displayed and terminal user interface efficiency, which shows that claim 1 is non-abstract.
Furthermore, the improvement in claim 1 is not to the abstract idea itself. The abstract idea, as characterized by the Examiner, relates to the commercial concept of understanding station group relationships. The improvement, however, resides in the specific technical mechanism by which the controller achieves this: concurrently tracking two persistent user- selection states, cross-referencing each against group information stored in memory, and dynamically modulating three distinct visual output modes. These are operations performed by the terninal apparatus hardware, not mental steps, and they produce a measurable technical result: reduction of user navigation steps and prevention of erroneous station selection without requiring any pre-filtering interaction. The improvement is therefore to the operation of the terminal apparatus itself, not to the underlying abstract idea.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Analysis under Step 2B is unnecessary because the claims are eligible under Step 2A.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the GUI, as argued above, is noted to be an additional element that is described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋⁋[0012-[0013] and [0015] and [0023]). This element in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Inasmuch, the examiner finds the GUI a generic computer component and merely invokes the element as a tool to perform the abstract idea as noted above and is not found to be an improvements in terminal user interface efficiency.
The examiner further notes that the purported improvement does in fact lie within the abstract idea, itself, as noted in Step 2A-Prong One and that the “operations performed by the terninal apparatus hardware,” as paraphrased by applicant, are noted to be additional elements used to apply the abstract idea are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Miyata discloses a system where, if a rental station is selected, the application dynamically displays selectability options for a return station to be subsequently selected. Specifically, the Examiner points to paragraphs [0081] and [0082] and Fig. 4 of Miyata, arguing that Miyata shows changing display aspects between selectable and unselectable stations (using solid and dashed outlines). Miyata describes "when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station" (paragraph [0081]). However, Miyata fails to disclose or suggest how to change the display aspects in response to the user subsequently selecting one of the first stations belonging to the unselectable group (i.e., different group than the group to which the initially selected station belongs). In other words, Miyata merely discloses how to change the display aspects in response to the user initially selecting a rental station, but does not disclose or suggest how to change the display aspects in response to the user subsequently selecting a return station from a group different than the group to which the initially selected rental station belongs. Thus, Miyata fails to disclose or suggest the specific dynamic update mechanism of amended claim 1: "when a second station subsequently selected by the user while the first station is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, identifying, by the controller, the second group based on the group information, and displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to the second group in a third mode."
In addition, Miyata at paragraphs [0132] and [0 l 33] describes that even if a rental station and a return station belong to different station groups, selection may be permitted under specific conditions. This merely teaches that the user may select, under specific conditions, a return station from a group different than the group to which the initially selected rental station belongs. As discussed above, however, Miyata fails to disclose or suggest how to change the display aspects in response to the user subsequently selecting a return station from a group different than the group to which the initially selected rental station belongs. Claim 1 is thus not rendered obvious by Miyata.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The examiner respectfully notes that Mityata was shown to disclose:
[...] in response to a user initially selecting a first station displayed on the screen, identifying by the controller, based on the group information a first group to which the first station belongs, and, displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to a first group in a first mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable);
when a second station ... while the first station is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, identifying by the controller, the second group based on the group information, and displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to the second group in a third mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable); [...]
The examiner respectfully sought to combine Kim to teach:
[...] in response to a user... selecting a [set], displaying, by the controller each “set” belonging to [a] first group (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons);
when a second “set” subsequently selected by the user while the first “set” is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying... (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0205] - The symbol icons 341 may stand for the plural groups and may be used to select the plural groups, respectively and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons and [0208] - After that, the power on-off operation or the brightness control of the lighting devices corresponding to the selected group can be collectively performed by using one of the first menu 331 and the second menu 332 included in the graphic user interface); [...]
The examiner respectfully notes as noted above Kim allows a user to select groups on an interface and as a user can select between the groups, respectfully; the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the ... icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other ... icons. T The examiner respectfully notes this teaching reads on the argument of “...dynamically displays selectability options ... to be subsequently selected.” This is further affirmed in Kim, as Kim states in, [0030] - the operational state “of the plurality” can be checked and changed in real time.... Thus, it is the combination of Kim to Miyata that discloses the aforementioned argued features in combination. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Walkin discloses a graphical user interface for map search, which displays a list of search results overlaying a graphical map, based on a user's current location data and input query (Abstract).
Kim discloses a lighting system control interface (Abstract) and describes that "the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons" (paragraph [0207]).
However, neither Walkin nor Kim discloses or suggests updating, in response to the user selecting a second station belonging to a second group after selecting a first station belonging to a first group, the dynamic interface to display each station belonging to the second group in a third mode, while maintaining each station belonging to the first group in a first mode and displaying each station belonging to neither the first or second group in a second mode. Further, Kim's lighting system interface is not even relevant to the features of claim 1.
Thus, Kim and Walkin do not remedy the deficiencies of Miyata.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The examiner respectfully notes that Mityata was shown to disclose:
[...] when a second station ... while the first station is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, identifying by the controller, the second group based on the group information, and displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to the second group in a third mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable);
identifying, by the controller, each station that does not belong to either the first group or the second group and displaying, by the controller, each station identified in a second mode ([0071] - The first stations 51 are displayed as A-1, A-2, A-3. The second stations 52 are displayed as B-1, B-2, B-3. The number of the station groups is not limited to two. The number may be three or more and [0081]-[0082]),
wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof ([0071] and [0081]-[0082] and [0085] - For example, the output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the figures representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the characters representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating text describing the stations.)
The examiner respectfully sought to combine Kim to teach:
[...] in response to a user... selecting a [set], displaying, by the controller each “set” belonging to [a] first group (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons);
when a second “set” subsequently selected by the user while the first “set” is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying... (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0205] - The symbol icons 341 may stand for the plural groups and may be used to select the plural groups, respectively and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons and [0208] - After that, the power on-off operation or the brightness control of the lighting devices corresponding to the selected group can be collectively performed by using one of the first menu 331 and the second menu 332 included in the graphic user interface); [...]
The examiner respectfully notes as noted above Kim allows a user to select groups on an interface and as a user can select between the groups, respectfully; the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the ... icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other ... icons. The examiner respectfully notes this teaching reads on the paraphrased argument of “...updating, in response to the user selecting a second “set” belonging to a second group after selecting a first “set” belonging to a first group, the dynamic interface....” This is further affirmed in Kim, as Kim states in, [0030] - the operational state “of the plurality” can be checked and changed in real time.... Thus, it is the combination of Kim to Miyata that discloses the aforementioned argued features in combination. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The claimed method allows a user to instantly and visually grasp which group a station belongs to simply by selecting a station of interest, thereby making it easier to intuitively determine candidates for a rental location or a return location.
Therefore, there is no need to pre-select a group before checking individual target entities. This facilitates an easier understanding of the relationships between stations while reducing the operational burden of graphical user interface (GUI) interactions.
For the foregoing reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner notes that the proposed combination of Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim purports the unexpected technical benefit. Kim allows a user to instantly visually grasp group a set belongs to simply by selecting a set of interest thereby making it easier to intuitively determine candidates. Miyata discloses the aforementioned concept of a station. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The same arguments as those with respect to amended claim 1 above apply to new claim 6.
B. Additional Distinctions
Furthermore, Miyata fails to disclose or suggest the distinct feature recited in original claim 3, now incorporated into claim 6: "displaying, by the controller, among one or more stations that belong to one or more groups other than the first group, a station that satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode."
The Examiner cited FIGS. 2 and 4, paragraphs [0022, [0051]-[0054], [0081], [0082], [0141]-[0143] of Miyata for rejecting original claim 3. However, Miyata merely teaches distinguishing a station's outline format (e.g., solid line vs. dashed line) to indicate a binary status of selectability. Miyata fails to disclose or suggest identifying a specific qualified station from a different group than the first group to which the initially selected first station belongs and dynamically updating the display aspect of the identified station to be displayed in the first mode - which is the very same mode dedicated to the first group.
According to claim 6, even for stations belonging to other groups than the first group, those satisfying a predetermined condition are displayed in the first mode for the first group. This configuration enables a user to easily recognize practically available candidates collectively on the screen, thereby making it easier to intuitively determine a station appropriate as a rental location or a return location.
Because Miyata lacks any teaching or suggestion of dynamically re-mapping qualified different-group stations into the primary group's presentation mode (first mode), the feature of original claim 3, now incorporated into new claim 6, involves a clear patentable distinction that is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the cited art. IV. Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that this application is in condition for allowance. Favorable reconsideration and prompt allowance are earnestly solicited.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Miyata was shown to dislcose: displaying, by the controller, among one or more stations that belong to one or more groups other than the first group, a station that satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode (FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 and [0022]and [0051]-[0054] and [0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable and [0141]-[0143] - The station groups may be configured such that only the stations managed by one operation entity belong to one station group. The station groups may be configured such that the stations managed by a plurality of operation entities belong to one station group). The examiner notes that station groups may be configured such that the stations managed by a plurality of operation entities (i.e., one or more other groups other than the first group) belong to one station group (i.e., satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode) due to a scheme and thus would be displayed. Kim teaches concepts of the dynamic interface as presented in the remarks above. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-5 are directed to a process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A method
determining
receiving
displaying
in response to a user initially selecting a first station,
[Claim 6] displaying
when a second station subsequently selected by the user
identifying
wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, includes determining a current position of the terminal apparatus; receiving, a location information and group information of a plurality of stations each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus; displaying the plurality of stations that serve as locations for renting out and returning the one or more mobile objects in a uniform mode; in response to a user initially selecting a first station, based on group information a first group to which the first station belongs, and displaying each station belonging to the first group in a first mode; [Claim 6] displaying among one or more stations that belong to one or more groups other than the first group, a station that satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode; when a second station subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, identifying the second group based on the group information and displaying each station belonging to the second group in a third mode; and identifying , each station that does not belong to either the first group or the second group, and displaying each station identified in a second mode, wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof, thus, claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, i.e., terminal apparatus w/ controller, output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, receiving via an communication interface from an information processing device storing, and display; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1 includes determining a current position of the terminal apparatus; receiving a location information and group information of a plurality of stations each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus; displaying, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its 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.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, recites i.e., terminal apparatus w/ controller, output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, receiving via an communication interface from an information processing device for storing and displaying (GUI). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋⁋[0012-[0013] and [0015] and [0023]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, i.e., terminal apparatus w/ controller, output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, receiving via an communication interface from an information processing device for storing and displaying (GUI); thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar representative Claim 6, is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 3-5, claims 3-5 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations i.e., further features related to a service or renting out one or more mobile objects and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (US 2022/0114656 A1) and Walkin (US 8,930,837 B2) and Kim et al. (US 2015/0008845 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Miyata discloses a method performed by a terminal apparatus that provides a service of renting out one or more mobile objects, the terminal apparatus including a controller (FIG. 1 and [0021]-[0022]), the method comprising:
determining, by the controller, [a range] of the terminal apparatus ([0058] - When the user desires a point located within a prescribed range as the point for renting the mobile object 30 to the user or the point for the user to return the mobile object 30, the operation entity can rent the mobile object 30 to the user only when the station or stations managed by the operation entity is present within the prescribed range);
receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, a location information and group information of a plurality of stations form an information processing device, and storing by the controller, location information and the group information of each station in a memory, each station being selected based on the [range] terminal apparatus ([0022] and [0051]-[0054] and [0058] - In the case where a user applies for rental of the mobile object 30 in the system according to the comparative example, the user can select the station for renting the mobile object 30 or the station for returning the mobile object 30 only from the stations managed by the operation entity using the pertinent system. When the user desires a point located within a prescribed range as the point for renting the mobile object 30 to the user or the point for the user to return the mobile object 30, the operation entity can rent the mobile object 30 to the user only when the station or stations managed by the operation entity is present within the prescribed range. In the case where a station managed by another operation entity is located within the prescribed range including the points that the user desires as the point for renting the mobile object 30 to the user and the point for the user to return the mobile object 30, the user needs to apply for rental of the mobile object 30 again in another system that is used by another operation entity. The mobile object management system 1 according to the present embodiment increases the possibility that any one of the operation entities is present with the prescribed range including the points that the user desires as the point for the user to rent the mobile object 30 and the point for the user to return the mobile object 30. Therefore, it becomes easier for the user to complete application for the mobile object 30 in a single system.)
displaying, on a screen of the terminal apparatus by the controller, the plurality of stations that serve as locations for renting out and returning the one or more mobile... (FIG. 2 and [0022] and [0051]-[0054]- Each of the operation entities basically stores the mobile objects 30 in the stations managed by each of the operation entities, that is, in the stations belonging to the identical station group. When renting the mobile object 30 to a user, each of the operation entities basically rents the mobile object 30 to the user on condition that the station for renting the mobile object 30 to the user and the station for the user to return the mobile object 30 belong to the identical station group and [0071] and [0081]-[0082]);
in response to a user initially selecting a first station displayed on the screen, identifying by the controller, based on the group information a first group to which the first station belongs, and, displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to a first group in a first mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable);
when a second station ... while the first station is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, identifying by the controller, the second group based on the group information, and displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to the second group in a third mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable); and
identifying, by the controller, each station that does not belong to either the first group or the second group and displaying, by the controller, each station identified in a second mode ([0071] - The first stations 51 are displayed as A-1, A-2, A-3. The second stations 52 are displayed as B-1, B-2, B-3. The number of the station groups is not limited to two. The number may be three or more and [0081]-[0082]),
wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof ([0071] and [0081]-[0082] and [0085] - For example, the output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the figures representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the characters representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating text describing the stations.)
Miyata fails to explicitly disclose
determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus;
receiving ... based on the current position of the terminal apparatus;
displaying, ... in a uniform mode;
when a second station subsequently selected by the user while the first station is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying...
However, in an analogous art, Walkin teaches
determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus (col. 8, lines 36-55 - Particular embodiments may determine the user's location based on location data from social networking system being continuously received by a special purpose client application that is configured to continuously capture location data of a mobile device of the first user. Particular embodiments may record data, including but not limited to, the latitude and longitude of the user, the altitude of the user, the horizontal and vertical accuracy levels of the location information, the current speed and direction of the user's travel, the timestamp of when a particular location was recorded, and the source of the location data on the mobile device, for example, from a GPS chip, WiFi, Bluetooth hardware, Cellular ID, or a software solution incorporating one or more of the above signals)
receiving ... based on the current position of the terminal apparatus (col. 9, lines 45-60 - Particular embodiments may retrieve one or more second locations in response to the search query, where the one or more second locations correspond to geographic coordinates, as illustrated in step 240. Sophisticated...For example, relevance of a particular second location may be based in part on the distance between the first location and the second location.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Walkin to the determining/receiving based on range of Miyata to include determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus; [and] receiving ... based on the current position of the terminal apparatus;
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Walkin to Miyata to do so as it provides / allows easy to use visual interface for map search with respect to location based services (Walkin, col. 1, lines 53-56 and col. 19, lines 59-60).
However, in an further analogous art, Kim teaches concepts of
displaying, on a screen of the terminal apparatus by the controller, the plurality of “sets” that serve as locations ... in a uniform mode (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] - Referring to FIG. 25, a third menu 333 for selecting one specific group from among the plural groups may be displayed in the third region 330 of the graphic user interface. If the third menu 333 is selected, as shown in FIG. 26, a group selection screen 340 for selecting one specific group from among the plural groups may be displayed in one region of the graphic user interface);
in response to a user... selecting a [set], displaying, by the controller each “set” belonging to [a] first group (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons);
when a second “set” subsequently selected by the user while the first “set” is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying... (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0205] - The symbol icons 341 may stand for the plural groups and may be used to select the plural groups, respectively and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons and [0208] - After that, the power on-off operation or the brightness control of the lighting devices corresponding to the selected group can be collectively performed by using one of the first menu 331 and the second menu 332 included in the graphic user interface.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim to the determining/displaying of station/groups of Miyata in view of Walkin to include displaying, on a screen of the terminal apparatus by the controller, the plurality of “sets” that serve as locations ... in a uniform mode; in response to a user selecting a [set], displaying, by the controller each “set” belonging to a first group; when a second “set” subsequently selected by the user while the first “set” is identified on the screen belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying...
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kim to Miyata in view of Walkin to do so as it provides / allows easy to control user interface (as gleaned from, Kim, [0007] and [0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similar representative Claim 6 (i.e., see claim 1 and claim 3);
Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim disclose the method to claim 1.
Miyata further discloses further comprising displaying, by the controller, among one or more stations that belong to one or more groups other than the first group, a station that satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode (FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 and [0022]and [0051]-[0054] and [0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable and [0141]-[0143] - The station groups may be configured such that only the stations managed by one operation entity belong to one station group. The station groups may be configured such that the stations managed by a plurality of operation entities belong to one station group). As construed that station groups may be configured such that the stations managed by a plurality of operation entities (i.e., one or more other groups other than the first group) belong to one station group (i.e., satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode) due to a scheme.
Regarding Claim 4;
Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim disclose the method to claim 1.
Miyata further discloses further comprising displaying, by the controller, each of the plurality of stations in a manner that a recommendation degree for each of the plurality of stations is distinguishable ([0085] - The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable with the presence of hatching, and may also display the stations so as to be distinguishable with different display aspects. For example, the output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the figures representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the characters representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating text describing the stations).
Regarding Claim 5;
Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim disclose the method to claim 1.
Miyata further discloses further comprising: identifying, by the controller, when the first station is selected by the user, stations for each of which the recommendation degree is to be reset, among the plurality of stations (FIG. 9 – Which is Selected Rental or Return Station (i.e., recommendation degree is to be reset) and [0084]-[0085] and [0118]-[0119] and [0121]-[0121]); and redisplaying, by the controller, each of stations for which the recommendation degree has been reset, in a manner that a recommendation degree for each of the stations for which the recommendation degree has been reset is distinguishable, based on recommendation degrees after being reset (FIG. 9 – Which is Selected Rental or Return Station (i.e., recommendation degree is to be reset) and [0084]-[0085] and [0118]-[0119] and [0121]-[0121]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights