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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed1/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-40 were amended. Claims 21-40 are presently pending and presented for examination.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for determining personal mobility vehicle information.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 21, 28 and 35 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving, from a personal mobility vehicle parked at the dock, personal mobility vehicle information between the personal mobility vehicle, the personal mobility vehicle information including data associated with a state of the personal mobility vehicle; determining, based on the personal mobility vehicle information, that the personal mobility vehicle is to be locked, wherein the determining includes communicating with a dynamic transportation between the dynamic transportation; causing the personal mobility vehicle to be locked at the dock in response to the determination that the personal mobility vehicle is to be locked; and causing with the dock to indicate that the personal mobility vehicle is not available” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 21; computing system, non-transitory memory, processors, dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 28; machine-readable medium, dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 28) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 21-40 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 21; computing system, non-transitory memory, processors, dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 28; machine-readable medium, dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 28). The dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 21; computing system, non-transitory memory, processors, dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 28; machine-readable medium, dock computing system, matching system, long-range communication connection, dock interface of claim 28, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34 and 36-40 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the dock computing system in claims 26-27, 29-34 and 40; matching system in claims 23-24, 26, 30-31, 33, 37-38 and 40; dock interface of claim 26, 33 and 40; machine-readable medium in claims 36-40; WiFi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (LE), Bluetooth 5, Near-field communication (NEC), Z-wave and ZigBee of claim 27 and 34, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210165404 - hereinafter Gillet) in view of Luke et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170039668 - hereinafter Luke) in view of Wang et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190263281 - hereinafter Wang).
Re. claim 21, 28 and 35; Gillet teaches:
A method comprising, by a dock computing system associated with a dock at a personal mobility vehicle station:
receiving, from a personal mobility vehicle parked at the dock, personal mobility vehicle information via a connection between the personal mobility vehicle and the dock computing system, the personal mobility vehicle information including data associated with a state of the personal mobility vehicle; [Gillet; ¶153 shows communication of information regarding the scooter’s state/battery such as “Through the communication session, the autonomous scooter 100 docking station 701 may transmit updated information (also referred to as docking station data) associated with the docking station 701, such as an operating status of the docking station 701, identities (and a number) of the shared micro-mobility fleet autonomous scooters 100 docked at the docking station 701 (e.g., such as the log entry for the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ), a charge status(es) of a fleet autonomous scooters 100+(e.g., the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ) docked at the multiple docks 703a-703c, or more at the docking station 701, information indicating physical condition(s) of the fleet autonomous scooters 100+ docked at the docking station 701, network information associated with the docking station 701, battery information associated with the docking station 701, and other information of the docking station 701 may be transmitted by the docking station to the control center 300 (e.g., on a periodic basis)”].
Gillet doesn’t teach, Luke teaches:
determining, based on the personal mobility vehicle information, that the personal mobility vehicle is to be locked, wherein the determining includes communicating with a dynamic transportation matching system via a long-range communication connection between the dynamic transportation matching system and the dock computing system; [Luke; Fig. 9, ¶19, ¶29-¶33 and ¶78 shows when it determines the battery level is below a threshold, it sends a signal to lock the vehicle which disclose the determining the level of charge of the power storage device of electric vehicle and send a signal causing operation of the electric vehicle to be disable in response to the determined the level of charge is below the threshold. The disable includes sending a signal causing a key of operation of the electric vehicle to be invalid].
causing the personal mobility vehicle to be locked at the dock in response to the determination that the personal mobility vehicle is to be locked; and [Luke; Fig. 9, ¶19, ¶29-¶33 and ¶78 shows when it determines the battery level is below a threshold, it sends a signal to lock the vehicle which disclose the determining the level of charge of the power storage device of electric vehicle and send a signal causing operation of the electric vehicle to be disable in response to the determined the level of charge is below the threshold. The disable includes sending a signal causing a key of operation of the electric vehicle to be invalid].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LUKE into the system of Gillet for the safety purpose e.g., to make sure the battery of vehicle is fully charged or almost fully charged for use by the end users {LUKE 0012}.
Gillet doesn’t teach, Wang teaches:
causing a dock interface associated with the dock to indicate that the personal mobility vehicle is not available. [Wang; ¶117 shows docking station stating there isn’t an available scooter such as “user locates a nearby docking station 126 with the available electric scooter 352. At the docking station 126, an indicator light reveals the status of the docking station 354. A red indicator light 356 indicates to the user there is no electric scooter available 358 at the docking station 126 and leads to the end of the process 360. A no light indicates that the electric scooter 108 is available and fully charged 362”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Gillet by including limitation(s) as taught by Wang to include the above features in the invention of Gillet. One would be motivated to modify Gillet with the teachings of Wang since “docking station thus facilitate shared resources or economy for lowering operation cost and benefiting society at large”. [Wang; ¶19].
Re. claim 22, 29 and 36, Gillet in view of Luke in view of Wang teaches method of claim 21.
Gillet teaches:
wherein the personal mobility vehicle information includes data related to a state of one or more batteries of the personal mobility vehicle. [Gillet; ¶153 shows communication of information regarding the scooter’s state/battery such as “Through the communication session, the autonomous scooter 100 docking station 701 may transmit updated information (also referred to as docking station data) associated with the docking station 701, such as an operating status of the docking station 701, identities (and a number) of the shared micro-mobility fleet autonomous scooters 100 docked at the docking station 701 (e.g., such as the log entry for the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ), a charge status(es) of a fleet autonomous scooters 100+(e.g., the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ) docked at the multiple docks 703a-703c, or more at the docking station 701, information indicating physical condition(s) of the fleet autonomous scooters 100+ docked at the docking station 701, network information associated with the docking station 701, battery information associated with the docking station 701, and other information of the docking station 701 may be transmitted by the docking station to the control center 300 (e.g., on a periodic basis)”].
Re. claim 23, 30 and 37, Gillet in view of Luke in view of Wang teaches method of claim 22.
Gillet teaches:
wherein determining, based on the personal mobility vehicle information, that the personal mobility vehicle is to be locked comprises:
sending, to the dynamic transportation matching system, the received personal mobility vehicle information including the data related to the state of the one or more batteries; and [Gillet; ¶152].
receiving, from the dynamic transportation matching system, instructions to lock the personal mobility vehicle. [Gillet; ¶152].
Re. claim 24, 31 and 38, Gillet in view of Luke in view of Wang teaches method of claim 23.
Gillet teaches:
wherein the personal mobility vehicle information is used to update an estimated remaining battery life value by the dynamic transportation matching system. [Gillet; ¶153 shows communication of information regarding the scooter’s state/battery such as “Through the communication session, the autonomous scooter 100 docking station 701 may transmit updated information (also referred to as docking station data) associated with the docking station 701, such as an operating status of the docking station 701, identities (and a number) of the shared micro-mobility fleet autonomous scooters 100 docked at the docking station 701 (e.g., such as the log entry for the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ), a charge status(es) of a fleet autonomous scooters 100+(e.g., the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ) docked at the multiple docks 703a-703c, or more at the docking station 701, information indicating physical condition(s) of the fleet autonomous scooters 100+ docked at the docking station 701, network information associated with the docking station 701, battery information associated with the docking station 701, and other information of the docking station 701 may be transmitted by the docking station to the control center 300 (e.g., on a periodic basis)”].
Re. claim 25, 32 and 39, Gillet in view of Luke in view of Wang teaches method of claim 24.
Gillet teaches:
wherein the estimated remaining battery life value is compared with a threshold value for determining whether the personal mobility vehicle is to be locked. [Luke; Fig. 9, ¶19, ¶29-¶33 and ¶78 shows when it determines the battery level is below a threshold, it sends a signal to lock the vehicle which disclose the determining the level of charge of the power storage device of electric vehicle and send a signal causing operation of the electric vehicle to be disable in response to the determined the level of charge is below the threshold. The disable includes sending a signal causing a key of operation of the electric vehicle to be invalid].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LUKE into the system of Gillet for the safety purpose e.g., to make sure the battery of vehicle is fully charged or almost fully charged for use by the end users {LUKE 0012}.
Re. claim 26, 33 and 40, Gillet in view of Luke in view of Wang teaches method of claim 21.
Gillet teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, from the personal mobility vehicle parked at the dock, updated personal mobility vehicle information via the connection between the personal mobility vehicle and the dock computing system; [Gillet; ¶153 shows communication of information regarding the scooter’s state/battery such as “Through the communication session, the autonomous scooter 100 docking station 701 may transmit updated information (also referred to as docking station data) associated with the docking station 701, such as an operating status of the docking station 701, identities (and a number) of the shared micro-mobility fleet autonomous scooters 100 docked at the docking station 701 (e.g., such as the log entry for the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ), a charge status(es) of a fleet autonomous scooters 100+(e.g., the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . ) docked at the multiple docks 703a-703c, or more at the docking station 701, information indicating physical condition(s) of the fleet autonomous scooters 100+ docked at the docking station 701, network information associated with the docking station 701, battery information associated with the docking station 701, and other information of the docking station 701 may be transmitted by the docking station to the control center 300 (e.g., on a periodic basis)”].
determining that the personal mobility vehicle is to be unlocked, wherein the determining that the personal mobility vehicle is to be unlocked includes communicating with the dynamic transportation matching system; [Gillet; ¶146].
causing the personal mobility vehicle to be unlocked at the dock in response to the determination that the personal mobility vehicle is to be unlocked; and [Gillet; ¶146].
causing the dock interface associated with the dock to indicate that the personal mobility vehicle is available. [Gillet; ¶154 shows one example such as “based on the information obtained from the docking station 701, the control center 300 may determine that the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . is available for hire. Upon receiving a hiring request from a transportation requester for the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . , the control center 300 may transmit an unlock signal to the autonomous scooters 100 and/or the docking station 701 for unlocking the shared autonomous scooters 100 . . . . Based on the unlock signal received from the control center 300, the docking station 701 may operate the locking mechanism associated with the dock 703 c to unlock the shared autonomous scooters 100”].
Re. claim 27 and 34, Gillet in view of Luke in view of Wang teaches method of claim 21.
Gillet teaches:
wherein the connection between the personal mobility vehicle and the dock computing system is established using WiFi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (LE), Bluetooth 5, near-field communication (NEC), Z-Wave, or ZigBee. [Gillet; ¶155-¶158].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights