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 Objections
Claim 4, 12, 29, 37, and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of “and/or” is informal and the broadest reasonable interpretation is “or” which has been applied. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite selecting one or more of three numbered elements, however element ii) has two requirements including an “update …” limitation that is not numbered but is separated by a line indentation. Line indentations are used to separate distinct claim limitations. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i). Therefore, either the line indentation before the “update …” limitation should be removed to eliminate any confusion of whether the “update …” limitation is a part of element ii) or the “update …” limitation should be separately numbered in order to identify it as its own limitation in the same manner as the other three elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 19, 28-29, 31, 33-35, 37, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 28, 29, 33, 34, and 35 reintroduce term “a display” even though claims 1 or 26 have already introduced “a display.” There is improper antecedent basis for this term. This is indefinite because it is not apparent if the claims require one display or multiple displays. If the claims do require multiple displays the claims do not distinguish between the different displays.
The term “near” in claims 6 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near a third perimeter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined how close to the perimeter a cart must be to be considered near a third perimeter as required by the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the term near has been interested to mean within.
Claims 12, 19, 37, and 44 reintroduce the term “an electronic device” even though each claim has already introduced “an electronic device.” There is improper antecedent basis for this term. This is indefinite because it is not apparent if the claims require one electronic device or multiple electronic devices. If the claims do require multiple electronic devices the claims do not provide a way to distinguish between the different electronic devices.
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 1-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-25 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 26-50 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 26, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of automatically monitoring the operations of a cart rental business, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting accepting reservations for carts and providing those carts to the user. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for fulfilling cart reservations based on the state of the cart inventory. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting obtaining reservations, evaluating inventor, identifying a cart for a reservation, and updating the inventory. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “automatically monitoring the operations of a cart rental business,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: obtaining reservation details, receiving reservation details, identifying a cart for the reservation, and updating the inventory. The mere nominal recitation of an app, a processor, a computing device, a display, a server, a memory, and a plurality of carts does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2-5, 8-10, 12-13, 15-22, 25, 27-30, 33-35, 37-38, 40-47, and 50, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: obtaining user location, transmitting user location, updating the inventory list, notifying service staff of a user location, notifying service staff an arrival or departure window, determining cart state based on location, notifying a user to return the cart, obtaining a second user location, receiving an indication the cart is ready for pickup, notifying the staff the cart is ready for pickup, alert that service is ending, associating a barcode with a user, determining cart location based on the barcode and the user, returning a cart, receiving a maintenance signal, updating the inventory based on the maintenance signal, alerting staff to a non-functional cart, identifying an available cart, transmitting a performance report, determining cart demand, determining whether demand is greater than inventory, alerting staff demand is greater than inventory, determining a service staff value, determining whether service capacity exceeds a threshold , alert the staff of service capacity, determining a service staff score, determining a combination of staff to exceed the service capacity threshold, and scheduling service staff.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 26 recite the additional elements: an app, a processor, a computing device, a display, a server, a memory, and a plurality of carts. These app, processor, computing device, display, server, and memory limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The plurality of carts limits the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the cart management field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of facilitating cart rentals in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing rental business process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 26 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting an app, a processor, a computing device, a display, a server, and a memory. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), and updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an app (Specification [0028]), a processor (Specification [0028]), a computing device (Specification [0028]), a display (Specification [0034]), a server (Specification [0028]), and a memory (Specification [0029]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting an app, a processor, a computing device, a display, a server, and a memory. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims limit the field of use by reciting a plurality of carts. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 3-4, 9-21, 23-25, 28-29, 34-46, and 48-50, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-4, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 19-21, 28-29, 34-35, 37, 40-42, and 44-46 recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions by reciting an electronic device and a display device. Regarding claims 3-4, 9-21, 23-25, 28-29, 34-46, and 48-49, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an electronic device (Specification [0046]), a display device (Specification [0046]), an API (Specification [0081]), imaging a barcode (Specification [0046]), causing a cart to follow a user (Specification [00102]), cart sensors (Specification [00102]), training machine learning (Specification [0037], [0039]), a battery charged by solar panels (Specification [0052], [0054]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 3-4, 9-17, 19-21, 23-24, 28-29, 34-42, 44-46, and 48-49 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting an electronic device, a display device, an API, imaging a barcode, causing a cart to follow a user, causing a cart to travel to a user, causing a cart to return to as service location, and training machine learning. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 11, 13-18, 36, and 38-43 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting an API, imaging a barcode, cart sensors. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 25 and 50 limit the field of use by reciting a battery charged by solar panels. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 6-7 and 31-32, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 18-20, 24, 26, 29-30, 33, 36-37, 43-45 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2020/0258018 A1), hereinafter Brady, in view of Izzo (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2020/0247442 A1), hereinafter Izzo.
Claim 1.
Brady discloses a cloud-based cart assistance system, the cart assistance system comprising:
a cart assistance application (app) comprising app computing instructions configured to execute on one or more processors of a computing device (Brady [0159], [0347] app can allow user to view and manage their vehicle trips; [0359] mobile phone of the driver), wherein the app computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain, from a display of the computing device, an arrival window and a departure window of a user to and from a service location, respectively, wherein the arrival window, departure window, and service location are indicated by the user (Brady [0115]-[0118] rental or lease data for opening a rental contract; [0143] input data in to a rental system data using a user terminal wherein the data includes the station ID and the date/time that the vehicle is being rented from), and
Regarding the following limitation:
a server communicatively coupled to the cart assistance app, the server comprising one or more processors and a memory, the memory storing a state of an inventory of a plurality of carts configured to traverse a beach environment, the memory storing server computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors of the server, wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, cause the one or more processors of the server to:
Brady discloses a server communicatively coupled to the cart assistance app, the server comprising one or more processors and a memory, the memory storing a state of an inventory of a plurality of vehicles, the memory storing server computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors of the server, wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, cause the one or more processors of the server to (Brady [0047], [0070], [0090] computer readable medium having instructions executed by a computer; [0109] rental or leasing system and telematics service provider; [0004] network; [0238], [0275], [0282], [0288] status of each vehicle). However, Brady does not disclose wherein the inventor is a plurality of carts configured to traverse a beach environment, but Izzo does (Izzo [0028] cargo carrier having a control system that allows carrier to be tracked and rented out to users, such as for a short-term use on the beach).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the beach cargo carrier of Izzo for the vehicle of Brady. Both the cargo carrier and the vehicle are known in the rental art as rental vehicles. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of rental for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Brady’s system with the improved functionality to allow for the management of specialized vehicles that are less likely to be owned and more likely to require a rental.
Brady discloses:
receive, from the computing device, the arrival window, the departure window, and the service location (Brady [0115]-[0118] rental or lease data for opening a rental contract; [0143] contract details provided to the TSP),
identify a cart of the plurality of carts that is available at the service location for the arrival window and the departure window (Brady [0291] instruct which vehicle the user needs to assign to each contract), and
update an electronic list to indicate the state of the cart is reserved for the user (Brady [0275], [0282], [0288] update vehicle dashboard showing vehicle status).
Claim 4.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to do one or more of:
(i) notify, via a display device, service staff at the service location the arrival window of the user is about to lapse in a given amount of time (Brady [0273] late arrivals), and/or
(ii) notify, via a display device, service staff at the service location the departure window of the user is about to lapse in a given amount of time (Brady [0274] the estimated return time drives the “predicted late drivers” action which gives customer service representative an action to contact the driver to make them aware that they are due back and to get an updated return time).
Claim 5.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
determine the state of the cart based on a geographic location of the cart, wherein the state of the cart is updated to a checked-out state when the geographic location of the cart is not at the service location (Brady [0223], [0236] automatically detect that vehicle L2 went out on contract C1 as it left the geofence at a time closer to the time that the contract opened).
Claim 8.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses:
wherein the state of the cart is updated to a checked-out state (Brady [0238], [0275], [0282], [0288] status of each vehicle), and wherein the app computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
notify the user to return the cart to the service location when the departure window of the user is about to lapse in a given amount of time (Brady [0274] the estimated return time drives the “predicted late drivers” action which gives customer service representative an action to contact the driver to make them aware that they are due back and to get an updated return time).
Claim 11.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses:
an application programming interface (API) configured to allow a third-party to access the API and act in place of the user (Brady [0272] APIs could be used to calculate the expected arrival time).
Claim 12.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to do one or more of:
(i) alert, via an electronic device, the user that service is ending (Brady [0274] the estimated return time drives the “predicted late drivers” action which gives customer service representative an action to contact the driver to make them aware that they are due back and to get an updated return time),
(ii) alert, via an electronic device, service staff that service for the user is ending (Brady [0274] the estimated return time drives the “predicted late drivers” action which gives customer service representative an action to contact the driver to make them aware that they are due back and to get an updated return time), and/or
(iii) alert, via an electronic device, a third-party that service for the user is ending (Brady [0272] APIs could be used to calculate the expected arrival time).
Claim 18.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive a maintenance signal from sensors on the cart indicating cart performance metrics (Brady [0212], [0217] if the DSP has detected an impact at any point during the rental period, the return agent will be alerted to inspect the vehicle for damage), and
update the electronic list based on the maintenance signal (Brady [0212], [0217] if the DSP has detected an impact at any point during the rental period, the return agent will be alerted to inspect the vehicle for damage, [0219] assign a maintenance task after a detected impact).
Claim 19.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses:
wherein the state of a cart further defines a performance state of the cart (Brady [0238], [0275], [0282], [0288] status of each vehicle), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to do one or more of:
(i) alert, via an electronic device, service staff when the performance state of a cart indicates the cart is no longer functional (Brady [0212], [0217] if the DSP has detected an impact at any point during the rental period, the return agent will be alerted to inspect the vehicle for damage);
(ii) identify an available cart with a first performance state indicating the available cart is functional when a second performance state of a reserved cart indicates the reserved cart is no longer functional, and
update the electronic list to indicate a change in the state of the available cart and the state of the reserved cart; or
(iii) transmit, to an electronic device of the service staff, a performance report indicating the performance states of the plurality of carts (Brady [0238], [0275], [0282], [0288] status of each vehicle).
Claim 20.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
determine a cart demand value for a future period of time based on one or more of (i) the electronic list, (ii) reservation data, (iii) user data, or (iv) weather data (Brady [0273] the “Outgoing next hour” values are calculated by adding the number of reservations of each vehicle type due out in the next hour and the number of late arrivals),
determine whether the cart demand value is greater than the inventory of the plurality of carts during the future period of time (Brady [0251], [0254], [0257] project whether vehicles will be in a deficit), and
responsive to determining the cart demand value is greater than the inventory of the plurality of carts during the future period of time, alert, via an electronic device, service staff (Brady [0253] return agents may be requested to move compact vehicles from an overflow car park to the branch).
Claim 24.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
train, with one or more of (i) the electronic list, (ii) reservation data, (iii) user data, or (iv) weather data, a machine learning model configured to output a prediction or classification with respect to a cart demand value (Brady [0293] system may take into account the vehicle branch pipeline and vehicles due to return and machine learning can be employed to determine trends and predict future supply and demands).
Claim 26.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 26 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 29.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 29 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 30.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 30 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim 33.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 33 as shown above in claim 8.
Claim 36.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 36 as shown above in claim 11.
Claim 37.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 37 as shown above in claim 12.
Claim 43.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 43 as shown above in claim 18.
Claim 44.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 44 as shown above in claim 19.
Claim 45.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 45 as shown above in claim 20.
Claim 49.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 49 as shown above in claim 24.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 27-28, 31-32, 34-35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Izzo, further in view of VanderZanden et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2020/0058065 A1), hereinafter VanderZanden.
Claim 2.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose wherein the app computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, but VanderZanden does:
obtain a current geographic location of the user (VanderZanden [0032] location data is provided indirectly from electric vehicles via mobile devices),
transmit the current geographic location of the user to the server (VanderZanden [0032] location data is provided indirectly from electric vehicles via mobile devices), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include user location data as taught by VanderZanden in the system of Brady, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of tracking rental vehicles, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Brady’s system with the improved functionality to detect if a user and a vehicle are not traveling together which would indicate a problem with the rental.
Brady discloses:
update, by the server, the electronic list to indicate that the cart is reserved for the user when the current geographic location of the user is within a first perimeter of the service location (Brady [0208] geofence for available bays; [0216] customer service representative opens a contract C1 for vehicle L1 at station ID S1 at time T1 and specifies the vehicle is due to return to S1 at time T2; [0278] reservation table).
Claim 3.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose wherein the app computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, but VanderZanden does:
obtain a current geographic location of an electronic device of the user (VanderZanden [0032] location data is provided indirectly from electric vehicles via mobile devices),
transmit the current geographic location of the user to the server (VanderZanden [0032] location data is provided indirectly from electric vehicles via mobile devices), and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of VanderZanden in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Brady discloses:
notify, via a display device, service staff at the service location when the current geographic location of the electronic device of the user is within a second perimeter of the service location (Brady [0208] geofence for return bays; [0220], [0224] close contract C1; [0278] reservation table).
Claim 6.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 5, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but VanderZanden does:
wherein the state of the cart is updated to the checked-out state when the geographic location of the cart is at or near a third perimeter comprising a coastline of a body of water, and wherein the service location is inland from the coastline (VanderZanden [0066], [0092] a beach bike path may be an area having speed restrictions; [0067], [0093] backend server may maintain a map of areas subject to speed restrictions; [0110] determine an on-demand electric vehicle is in a restricted area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a beach geofence as taught by VanderZanden in the system of Brady, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of using geofences for monitoring the usage of rental vehicles, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Brady’s system with the improved functionality to enforce restrictions on certain usage areas, as suggested by VanderZanden (VanderZanden [0066], [0092]).
Claim 7.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 5, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but VanderZanden does:
wherein the geographic location of the cart is determined by a current geographic location of the user (VanderZanden [0032] location data is provided indirectly from electric vehicles via mobile devices).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of VanderZanden in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Claim 9.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose wherein the state of the cart is updated to a checked-out state, and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, but VanderZanden does:
obtain a current geographic location of a second user (VanderZanden [0032] mobile devices provide their corresponding location data to backend server), and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of VanderZanden in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Brady discloses:
notify, via a display device, the user to return the cart to the service location when the current geographic location of the second user is within a fourth perimeter (Brady [0274] the estimated return time drives the “predicted late drivers” action which gives customer service representative an action to contact the driver to make them aware that they are due back and to get an updated return time).
Claim 10.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, but VanderZanden does:
receive a signal from the user indicating the user is ready for the cart to be picked up by service staff (VanderZanden [0114] user may use the application to indicate a rental has ended); and
notify, via a display device, service staff the user is ready for the cart to be picked up at a geographic location of the cart (VanderZanden [0033], [0043], [0047], [0048] a rebalancer may move vehicles located in an inefficient use zone; [0072] determine the rental has ended; [0073] indicate a vehicle is now available for rebalancing).
The known technique indicating a vehicle is available for pickup of VanderZanden, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Brady as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are managing rental vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of retrieving rental vehicles of VanderZanden to the rental returns of Brady would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of VanderZanden to the teaching of Brady would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such retrieving rental vehicles features into vehicle rental systems. Further, applying retrieving rental vehicles to Brady, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more convenience for the renter by allowing them to conclude their rental away from a vehicle rental station.
Claim 13.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but VanderZanden does:
wherein the cart is associated with a two-dimensional barcode (2D barcode), including a unique universal product code (UPC) or a quick response (QR) code (VanderZanden [0059], [0084] user may use the app installed on user’s mobile device to scan a QR code associated with the on-demand electric vehicle to activate a rental), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
obtain an image from an imaging device of the user, the image containing the 2D barcode (VanderZanden [0059], [0084] user may use the app installed on user’s mobile device to scan a QR code),
establish an association between the 2D barcode and a user-specific code associated with the user (VanderZanden [0059], [0084] activate a rental), and
determine a geographic location of the cart based on the 2D barcode and a current geographic location of the user determined from the user-specific code (VanderZanden [0060], [0085] monitor a location associated with the rented on-demand electric vehicle).
The known technique using a QR code to expedite vehicle pickup of VanderZanden, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Brady as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are managing vehicle rentals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a QR code to expedite vehicle pickup of VanderZanden to the vehicle pickup of Brady would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of VanderZanden to the teaching of Brady would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a QR code for pickup feature into vehicle rental systems. Further, applying a QR code for pickup to Brady, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient a faster pickup process with less manual data entry by the renter.
Claim 27.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 27 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 28.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 28 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 31.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 31 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim 32.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 32 as shown above in claim 7.
Claim 34.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 34 as shown above in claim 9.
Claim 35.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 35 as shown above in claim 10.
Claim 38.
Brady in view of Izzo and VanderZanden teaches all the elements of claim 38 as shown above in claim 13.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Izzo, further in view of Yoshida (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0301045 A1), hereinafter Yoshida.
Claim 14.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Yoshida does:
wherein the cart is semi-autonomous (Yoshida [0031] autonomous wagon), and wherein the app computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
communicate with sensors on the cart, thereby causing the cart to follow the user (Yoshida [0035], [0040], [0047], [0053] the wagon controller may cause the wagon to follow the user).
The known technique causing a wagon to autonomously operate as instructed by a user of Yoshida, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Brady as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are vehicle rental systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of causing a wagon to autonomously operate as instructed by a user of Yoshida to the vehicle rental system of Brady would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yoshida to the teaching of Brady would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such autonomously operated wagon instructions into vehicle rental systems. Further, applying autonomously operated wagon instructions to Brady, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient safety enforcement for the operating rules of a rental vehicle because a user cannot violate the rules because the user is not controlling the wagon.
Claim 15.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Yoshida does:
wherein the cart is autonomous (Yoshida [0031] autonomous wagon), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
obtain a current geographic location of an electronic device of the user (Yoshida [0044] user terminal transmits autonomous travel application information to the server; [0045] autonomous travel application includes departure place and destination), and
communicate with sensors on the cart when the current geographic location of the electronic device of the user is within a fifth perimeter of the service location, thereby causing the cart to autonomously travel to the current geographic location of the electronic device of the user (Yoshida [0049] create an autonomous travel plan for the wagon from the station to the use start place).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Yoshida in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Claim 16.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Yoshida does:
wherein the cart is autonomous (Yoshida [0031] autonomous wagon), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive a signal from an electronic device of the user indicating for the cart to return to the service location (Yoshida [0045], [0060] user ends use of the wagon), and
communicate with sensors on the cart, thereby causing the cart to autonomously travel to the service location (Yoshida [0012], [0061] create an autonomous travel plan for the wagon to travel autonomously to the station).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Yoshida in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Claim 17.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Yoshida does:
wherein the cart is autonomous (Yoshida [0031] autonomous wagon), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive a signal from an electronic device of the user indicating the cart to return to a current geographic location of the user (Yoshida [0044] user terminal transmits autonomous travel application information to the server; [0045] autonomous travel application includes departure place and destination),
obtain a current geographic location from an electronic device of the user (Yoshida [0044] user terminal transmits autonomous travel application information to the server; [0045] autonomous travel application includes departure place and destination), and
communicate with sensors on the cart, thereby causing the cart to autonomously travel to the current geographic location of the user (Yoshida [0049] create an autonomous travel plan for the wagon from the station to the use start place).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Yoshida in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Claim 39.
Brady in view of Izzo and Yoshida teaches all the elements of claim 39 as shown above in claim 14.
Claim 40.
Brady in view of Izzo and Yoshida teaches all the elements of claim 40 as shown above in claim 15.
Claim 41.
Brady in view of Izzo and Yoshida teaches all the elements of claim 41 as shown above in claim 16.
Claim 42.
Brady in view of Izzo and Yoshida teaches all the elements of claim 42 as shown above in claim 17.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Izzo, further in view of Hunter et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0092521 A1), hereinafter Hunter.
Claim 21.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Brady discloses wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
determine a cart demand value for a future period of time based on one or more of (i) the electronic list, (ii) reservation data, (iii) user data, or (iv) weather data (Brady [0273] the “Outgoing next hour” values are calculated by adding the number of reservations of each vehicle type due out in the next hour and the number of late arrivals),
Brady does not disclose the following limitations, but Hunter does:
determine a service staff value for the future period of time based on one or more of (i) a quantity of service staff scheduled to work during the future period of time, (ii) a quantity of service staff on call to work during the future period of time, or (iii) service staff data (Hunter [0178] ensure an adequate number of workers),
determine whether a service capacity ratio exceeds a service capacity threshold, the service capacity ratio based on the cart demand value and the service staff value (Hunter [0176] generate schedule to meet the predicted demand; [0179] an appropriate number or subset of workers can be scheduled), and
responsive to determining the service capacity ratio exceeds the service capacity threshold, alert, via an electronic device, service staff (Hunter [0180] schedule can be shared with the workers).
The known technique managing staffing based on the staff’s service capacity relative to demand of Hunter, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Brady as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are operating a service-based business. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of managing staffing based on the staff’s service capacity relative to demand of Hunter to operating a service-based business of Brady would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Hunter to the teaching of Brady would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such demand-based staffing analysis features into a service-based business system. Further, applying managing staffing based on the staff’s service capacity relative to demand to Brady, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient labor spending by not overstaffing a service location when demand is low.
Claim 22.
Brady in view of Izzo and Hunter teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Hunter does:
wherein service staff data includes one or more of (i) time sheet data, (ii) availability data, (iii) customer survey data, (iv) performance review data, (v) reliability values, (vi) likeability values, or (vii) efficiency values (Hunter [0163] worker profile data; [0171] worker availability), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
determine a service staff score for an individual service staff of a plurality of service staff based on service staff data (Hunter [0164], [0179] reference worker capacity when generating a schedule),
determine a combination of service staff which would cause the service capacity ratio to not exceed the service capacity threshold (Hunter [0176] optimize scheduling parameters),
schedule the combination of service staff to work during the future period of time (Hunter [0176] generate a schedule).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Hunter in the system of Brady for the same reasons discussed above in claim 21.
Claim 23.
Brady in view of Izzo and Hunter teaches all the elements of claim 22, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Hunter does:
train, with the service staff data, a machine learning model configured to output a prediction or classification with respect to one or more of: (i) service staff values, (ii) reliability values, (iii) likeability values, (iv) efficiency values, (v) service staff scores, or (vi) combinations of service staff (Brady [0294] calculate key metrics for branch efficiency and performance to improve the decision making of users wherein a machine learning algorithm could determine the best action to take by each employee at any given time).
Claim 46.
Brady in view of Izzo and Hunter teaches all the elements of claim 46 as shown above in claim 21.
Claim 47.
Brady in view of Izzo and Hunter teaches all the elements of claim 47 as shown above in claim 22.
Claim 48.
Brady in view of Izzo and Hunter teaches all the elements of claim 48 as shown above in claim 23.
Claim(s) 25 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Izzo, further in view of Harty et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2020/0276910 A1), hereinafter Harty.
Claim 25.
Brady in view of Izzo teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Brady does not disclose the following limitation, but Harty does:
wherein the cart is autonomous or semi-autonomous and sensors affixed to the cart are powered by a battery charged by a plurality of solar panels (Harty [0035], [0039] autonomous; [0035], [0039] battery; [0040] solar panel array), and wherein the server computing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an autonomous vehicle charged by solar panels as taught by Harty in the system of Brady, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring the usage of a fleet of vehicles, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Brady’s system with the improved functionality to prioritize renewable resources.
Brady does not disclose the following limitations, but Harty does:
determine solar condition requirements for a cart to operate during a period of time (Harty [0062], [0080] charge station to electric vehicle ratio used to determine a drain on supply),
determine whether solar condition forecasts of the period of time do not meet the solar condition requirements (Harty [0058] weather related reduction of solar exposure might be associated with cloudy and/or rainy conditions; [0075] available charge on the gird can be determined by weather; [0080] predict charge levels based on weather), and
responsive to determining solar condition forecasts of the period of time do not meet the solar condition requirements, alert, via an electronic device, service staff to charge the battery via an external power source (Harty [0061] G2V energy request; [0075] V2G energy request).
The known technique using solar forecasts for vehicle availability planning of Harty, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Brady as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are monitoring the usage of a fleet of vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using solar forecasts for vehicle availability planning of Harty to monitoring the usage of a fleet of vehicles of Brady would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Harty to the teaching of Brady would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such using solar forecasts for vehicle availability planning features into fleet monitoring systems. Further, applying solar forecasts to Brady, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient ability to prioritize renewable resources without sacrificing vehicle availability.
Claim 50.
Brady in view of Izzo and Harty teaches all the elements of claim 50 as shown above in claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628